The idea, conceived in a country that already outperforms much of the rich world in education, is to figure out whether a bit more financial acumen will help Finns borrow less.

Finnish household debt has doubled in the past two decades against a backdrop of falling interest rates and the gradual obsolescence of cash as a form of payment. The people of Finland, home to companies like Nokia and Rovio of Angry Birds fame, are known for being more tech savvy than most. But their willingness to embrace digital payments over cash has coincided with less discipline in their spending habits.

Now, a record 7% of Finland’s 5.5 million citizens can’t pay their bills, up by a third over the past decade. In recent years, the authorities have raised the alarm on growth in consumer credit in particular.

Juha Pantzar, executive director of the Guarantee Foundation, which helps over-indebted people regain control of their finances, says the fact that “cash has vanished” has created a new reality that’s “obscuring people’s feel for money.”

“A lot of people have a hard time estimating where their money is spent, how much they will have left at the end of the month, and how much they can afford to borrow,” he said.

About 20 years ago, cash was used in 70% of payment transactions at stores, with cards accounting for the rest. Now, those metrics have flipped: card, mobile and other digital modes of payment were used in more than 80% of the time in 2018, according to data compiled by the central bank.

Olli Rehn, the governor of the Bank of Finland, says, “Consumers have largely already moved to a digital world” when it comes to payments. “People no longer have such physical budget limitations as they used to do, and that makes it harder for people to manage their finances.”

That’s where the central bank hopes to make a difference. Its first step will be to compile data and best practices from organizations already working in the field in a bid to scale up their work and ensure all groups in society are getting adequate assistance. Then, it will set national targets for financial literacy, and work with third-party providers to coordinate the roll-out of the national plan. (The central bank is still working on the details of the program.)

“A lot of work is already being done among young people, but there’s a lot of older people who need help in navigating increasingly digital financial services,” Anu Raijas, a senior adviser at the Bank of Finland who’s formulating the strategy for financial literacy, said by phone. “The aim is to have the data compiled and a strategy ready by the end of the year.”

Finland has already explored other ways to cut household debt. The financial regulator has capped home loans at 85% of a property’s purchase price, and plans for further restrictions are in the works at the Finance Ministry.

By 2023, the government wants to have a credit registry with records of everyone’s borrowing to help lenders assess whether to grant a new loan. Rules on consumer credit were tightened last autumn.

Finnish authorities are worried about the human cost of debt which, in extreme cases, can even result in people being sidelined from the labor market as employers shun workers with poor credit histories, and because people servicing massive debt loads find little benefit in working.

Finland’s debt concerns aren’t limited to its private households. While Denmark, Sweden and Norway all enjoy AAA ratings across the board, Finland stands out for its AA+ grade after government debt repeatedly tested the European Union’s 60% threshold of GDP.

In Finland’s parliament, there’s a broad consensus that keeping consumers as informed as possible on the dangers of debt is key. The plan also has the backing of the financial sector.

“No one should have to learn to manage their finances by trial and error,” said Piia-Noora Kauppi, managing director of Finance Finland, which represents the industry. “These skills should be taught at school much more and much earlier.”

True to style, the Finns are exploring high-tech paths toward educating citizens on how to use their money. In the future, new tools built on machine-learning algorithms will help forecast people’s financial behavior and make personal cash-flow predictions, as well as give advice to consumers on their spending.

The caveat is that “people need to be willing and motivated to use those tools,” Kauppi said. “If you don’t want to face your financial reality, then none of these tools will help.”

Its breach of five figures comes amid an equities rally that’s seen the S&P 500 Index reach new highs as fears abate that the coronavirus will dent global growth.

“The rally is a part of a broader appeal for risky assets as optimism grows that the coronavirus impact might be limited to the first quarter and on optimism that China will play nice with the U.S. on phase-two trade talks,” said Ed Moya, senior market analyst at Oanda.

Cryptocurrencies have been on an upward trend all year, with some analysts and digital-asset enthusiasts suggesting they’ve benefited as safe-haven plays amid ongoing geopolitical concerns around the globe.

“There’s certainly a narrative in the investment community that Bitcoin is solidifying its place as a store of value, a flight to safety, inflation hedge,” Michael Sonnenshein, managing director at Grayscale Investments, said in an interview at Bloomberg’s New York headquarters. If history is any guide, the upcoming halving, which is set to happen in May, could also have an impact on the token’s price, he said.

Some Bitcoin enthusiasts are predicting further gains. Fundstrat Global Advisors’ Rob Sluymer, for one, sees it rising through the second quarter this year to trade in a range of $10,000 to $11,000. Mike McGlone, an analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence, says the 2020 outlook for the largest digital token remains favorable. “Similar to gold, positive fundamentals should extend Bitcoin’s price appreciation,” he wrote in a Wednesday note.

Bitcoin peaked at almost $20,000 in December 2017 and finished that year up about 1,400% as the cryptocurrency burst into the mainstream. It plunged 74% the next year, before rebounding almost 100% in 2019.

The EEC spans the provinces of Rayong, Chon Buri and Chachoengsao.

Thailand received orders worth more than Bt900 billion last year from China, accounting for 11.8 per cent of the kingdom’s total exports.

Chinese foreign direct investment in Thailand stood at around Bt260 billion last year.

The chamber also conveyed its best wishes to Chinese people in general and Chinese businessmen in Thailand, strongly believing they can survive the coronavirus crisis.

Across Europe, 74% of finance professionals, including traders, analysts and fund managers, said they favor reducing the current 8 1/2-hour stock market day — which exceeds the U.S. by two hours.

The results of the survey lend weight to a proposal by two professional bodies to shorten market hours for reasons including the concentration of liquidity in the first and last hours of trading, the short time window between corporate news releases and the market open, and the need to improve the work-life balance and diversity at financial firms. The Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME) and the Investment Association of U.K. asset managers asked bourses in November to consider cutting 90 minutes from their trading day.

“Making trading hours shorter will improve market efficiency,” said Matthew McLoughlin, a London-based partner and head of trading at Liontrust Investment Partners and a member of the Investment Association’s buy-side trading committee. “There’s no benefit in spreading liquidity out over a longer period than necessary.”

In an informal survey, Bloomberg News asked 114 market participants, with 52% based in London and the rest spanning other major European cities, including Paris and Amsterdam. About two-thirds of the respondents were traders, 17% fund managers and 16% analysts.

A reduction of the trading day by one hour is favored by 51% of those who advocated shorter hours, while 34% would like to see it cut by 1 1/2 hours. Overall, a later start to the European stock market open would be appreciated by 78% of those respondents and 75% are in favor of an earlier close.

While there is no strong consensus on what the hours should be, the most popular response, favored by 28% of respondents, was to delay the market’s opening time by an hour to 9 a.m. London time and bring forward the close by 30 minutes to 4 p.m.

Advances in technology over the last 20 years that make it easier to trade from remote locations around the globe are one reason why market hours don’t need to be as long as they are in Europe, according to Helen Thomas, a former head of active currency at State Street Global Advisors who now runs a macroeconomic consulting firm.

“Markets these days are much more efficient in terms of trading cost and technology improvement, so people can trade more easily and more quickly from anywhere in the world,” she said.

London’s 8 a.m. market start means most traders need to be at the office by 6 a.m., making it more challenging for parents with young children to work as traders because it’s “impossible” to find childcare at 5 a.m., Liontrust’s McLoughlin said. The long hours and early start also deter recent university graduates from going into equity trading because they can instead work for technology firms that offer flexible hours and a work-life balance, he said.

Shorter sessions “could help change the perception of the industry with different generations, which could in turn, help attract people who wouldn’t normally consider a career in asset management,” said Louise Drummond, deputy global head of investment execution at Aberdeen Standard Investments.

The imbalance between the length of trading hours in Europe and the U.S. is at odds with the respective scale of the regions’ markets. The capitalization of the Stoxx Europe 600 is about half that of the S&P 500 and the average turnover in the European benchmark in the last 12 months is about 40% lower than on Wall Street.

Some of the survey responses included proposals to begin trading at 11 a.m. London time, to have a formal lunch break around midday, and to make the European trading day 24 hours long.

According to April Day, head of equities at AFME, one of the bodies which proposed the shorter hours, exchanges across Europe will need to coordinate between themselves if the hours are changed. But she admits that this could take time and is “uncharted waters.”

The London Stock Exchange just concluded a seven-week consultation among participants on a potential adjustment to market hours, and says it “strongly supports improving diversity and workplace culture.” A spokesman for Deutsche Boerse said it’ll discuss the main implications of a change to trading times with its stakeholders and announce its position in due course. Euronext NV representatives weren’t immediately available to comment.

The proposal for reduced hours could meet resistance from continental European bourses. Pushing back the start of the trading day across the entire region might mean the German stock market not opening until 10 a.m. local time and Finland until 11 a.m, for example.

“We believe that shortening trading hours isn’t good for the market as it reduces the possibilities for investors and active traders to implement their trading decisions,” said Peter Vorrath, head of business and corporate development for SSW-Trading GmbH, a proprietary trading firm in Hamburg, Germany.

Vorrath is also concerned about the impact shorter hours will have on retail investors as the move might increase the costs for day traders who like to operate outside normal business hours when spreads are wider, and push them toward over-the-counter and retail exchanges.

In its response to LSE’s consultation, Norway’s Wealth Fund said on Monday that it supports shorter trading hours and favors the option of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. London time because that would shift the day closer to the opening of North American markets when peak trading interest occurs. According to Norges Bank Investment Management, this would also allow after-hours market placements to occur earlier.

“Just because these hours were deemed appropriate 20 years ago, it doesn’t mean that it’s suitable for today’s society or the technologically-minded workforce that we have,” Liontrust’s McLoughlin said. “The financial industry needs to realize that they’re making a mistake here and they need to fix it.”

—

A U.S. president with slipping approval ratings moves to shore up his conservative bona fides by pledging to reform a crucial government safety net program. He and his surrogates breathlessly insist that the current system is in crisis. Broadcast news outlets provide little in the way of context and economic analysis of the claims.

Sounds a lot like President Trump’s attacks on the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, but as Paul Krugman reminds us in his new book, “Arguing With Zombies: Economics, Politics, and the Fight for a Better Future,” conservatives’ use of misleading or inaccurate information to justify cuts to assistance and entitlement programs dates back years, most notably to George W. Bush’s failed 2004 effort to privatize Social Security.

Loyal readers of Krugman’s twice-weekly column in the New York Times will not be surprised by the central themes of the book, which includes and expands on his Times writings. He forcefully and repeatedly contends that Republican lawmakers are carrying water for corporations and the wealthiest Americans by rolling back regulations and cutting taxes for the rich on the basis of the fake or “zombie” theory that what’s good for the 1 percent is good for everybody. (In Krugman’s vivid language, zombie ideas are those “that should have been killed by contrary evidence, but instead keep shambling along, eating people’s brains.”)

Still, the book is a revelation. It showcases the range of Krugman’s intellect – he can toggle authoritatively from climate change and the Green New Deal to the Maastricht Treaty and currency crises – and his gift for clear, accessible writing. He neatly mixes pop cultural references and economic data; one column calling for 1950s-era tax policies (back then the marginal tax rate on top incomes was more than 90 percent) is whimsically titled “The Twinkie Manifesto.”

But Krugman’s real superpower may be his longevity. He began contributing to the Times in 2000, and he has chronicled numerous economic policies and proposals that have been promoted or propped up by zombie claims. He opens his book with a chapter on the push to privatize Social Security – by turning it over to financial services companies – with a series of columns showing that, contrary to Bush administration reports, the program is highly functional. He proceeds to dismantle other corporate and conservative talking points in vogue over the years: The Trump tax cut will pay for itself! (In fact, federal tax receipts on corporate income have plunged, and the budget deficit is now more than $1 trillion.) Government needs to be more fiscally responsible! (See aforementioned tax cut, which didn’t come with concomitant spending cuts.) A disciple of John Maynard Keynes, Krugman eviscerates lawmakers in the United States for wringing their hands, post-financial crisis, over budget deficits caused by stimulus spending, which actually keep an economy from ruinous contraction. Without, say, unemployment benefits, families cut their spending, which in turn hurts vendors of goods and services.

Taken together, all these arguments with zombies reveal much about the electorate and the Republican Party of today. Krugman writes: “I see Trump not as a departure from the past so much as the culmination of where movement conservatism” – an elitist dogma wrapped in populist rhetoric – “has been taking us for decades.”

Krugman doesn’t shy from calling out the mean-spiritedness that underlies much of the conservative agenda. One new essay is titled “The Cruelty Caucus.” Indeed, there’s little economic rationale for cutting food stamps for work-eligible adults, as the Trump administration has; Krugman notes that the United States actually spends very little helping low-income Americans. Nor is there a financial rationale for opting out of Medicaid expansion, as 14 states have. “Refusing free money that would help the poor is something else – it’s cruelty for its own sake,” Krugman writes.

The book is unexpectedly light on the topic of trade, for which he won what he calls the “Swedish thingie.” (Krugman won his Nobel Prize for an analysis of trade patterns.) In the introduction to his 13-page chapter on trade wars, Krugman notes that “international trade and international trade policy aren’t as important as people think they are,” as if to justify the glossing over of what’s (not) to come. But I would have loved more insight into his thinking on the flavor of free trade that has become commonplace among liberal elites in business, even as the rise of populists on the left and the right has exposed the shortcomings of globalization.

Krugman’s critics on the right will surely take issue with his writings on Trump’s economic policies by pointing to record-high stock prices and the 11-year expansion of the U.S. gross domestic product. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to quibble with Krugman’s underlying message that the current system is hurting the poor to the benefit of the rich and corporations. According to the Census Bureau, a key index that measures the gap between the wealthiest and poorest Americans is the highest it has been in 50 years.

The problem is so acute that some businesses – the very beneficiaries of many of Trump’s policies – have proactively embraced the notion of inclusive capitalism, essentially acknowledging that the system is broken if it doesn’t work for everyone. Companies such as Bank of America are voluntarily raising their minimum wages; others, such as Mastercard, are enhancing their retirement plans. The Business Roundtable, which represents the chief executives of some of the country’s biggest corporations, last year adopted a new statement of purpose, acknowledging that Americans are struggling, and modernizing its principles to invest in employees and support the communities where its members operate.

Krugman probably wouldn’t object to these measures, but he might offer another suggestion. Corporations have entire teams dedicated to finding ways to reduce their payments to the federal government. Maybe in addition to being more benevolent to their workers, they could just pay their taxes.

—

Mehta is the editor in chief of Fast Company.

The bank lowered its benchmark interest rate by 25 basis points to 6%, according to a statement Friday, taking the total reduction in the past year to 175 basis points. The move was forecast by 22 out of 34 economists in a Bloomberg survey.

“There is a relatively high probability of a rate cut at the next meeting, but it’s not guaranteed,” Governor Elvira Nabiullina said at a news conference after the decision. The next meeting will be held on March 20.

Disinflationary risks are higher than pro-inflationary risks in the short-term, while the spread of coronavirus will be an “additional uncertainty factor” over the coming quarters and threatens the global economy, according to the statement. Fallout from the disease isn’t having a major impact on Russia’s economy yet, Nabiullina said.

At least 11 other central banks have eased monetary policy this week, while many others have been biding their time as the fallout from the spread of coronavirus reverberates through the global economy.

Bonds rallied as investors bet that the central bank is ready to drop rates below 6%, the lower band of its neutral-rate range. The range is an estimate and the central bank can go below it, Nabiullina said.

Russian local-currency government bonds, known as OFZs, attracted inflows of about $16 billion last year due in part to faster-than-expected easing. Yields on bonds maturing in 10 years dropped 7 basis points on Friday to 6.16%.

“It’s a bold move,” said Valeriy Vaysberg, head of research at Region Investment Co. “This means that the rally in OFZs could continue. We also expect a strengthening of the ruble and strong demand at government bond auctions.”

Russia’s rate cuts have so far failed to stoke price growth, which has slowed to far below the bank’s 4% goal since October. A government overhaul last month is expected to usher in accelerated fiscal spending aimed at boosting sluggish economic growth in President Vladimir Putin’s final term in office.

Additional social outlays announced last month won’t have a “considerable pro-inflationary impact,” but this year’s inflation trends will be shaped by the pace of budget spending, the central bank said. Extra spending in 2020 could total 2.1 trillion rubles ($34 billion), or 1.3% of gross domestic product, according to calculations by ING Groep NV.

Russia has room for stimulative budget policy and the impact on inflation will be limited if the government sticks to a budget rule designed to limit exposure to oil price volatility, Nabiullina said. The central bank plans to meet frequently with the government to discuss the extra spending, she said.

Annual inflation slowed for a 10th straight month to 2.4% in January. The Economy Ministry said Friday there is a “serious risk” price growth will fall as low as 2.2% this quarter.

“The central bank doesn’t sound hawkish with respect to fiscal spending,” said Evgeny Koshelev, an analyst at Rosbank in Moscow. “That may add inflation pressure only in the medium-term.”

“Because of the size of the Chinese economy, significant distress in China could spill over to U.S. and global markets through a retrenchment of risk appetite, U.S. dollar appreciation, and declines in trade and commodity prices,” the U.S. central bank wrote in its semi-annual report to Congress released on Friday in Washington. “The effects of the coronavirus in China have presented a new risk to the outlook.”

The coronavirus has claimed more than 600 lives since its outbreak in China. Some economists have started to mark down their first-quarter U.S. growth estimates as China’s economy is expected to slow due to the coronavirus outbreak.

Fed Chairman Jerome Powell will discuss the economy and monetary policy before the House Financial Services Committee on Feb. 11 and the Senate banking panel the following day. The Monetary Policy Report released Friday is aimed at informing the Congress of the Fed’s outlook and sense of risks to U.S. and global growth.

A special section on financial stability was more descriptive than the previous report on possible points of stress in some areas. The Fed said that low interest rates had elevated asset valuations, and it also pointed to risks in the corporate debt markets.

“The concentration of investment-grade debt at the lower end of the investment-grade spectrum creates the risk that adverse developments, such as a deterioration in economic activity, could lead to a sizable volume of bond downgrades to speculative-grade ratings,” the Fed said. “Such conditions could trigger investors to sell the downgraded bonds rapidly, increasing market illiquidity and causing outsized downward price pressures.”

The Fed also mentioned that volatility in repurchase agreement markets in September “highlighted the possibility for frictions in repo markets to spill over to other markets.”

U.S. central bankers kept their benchmark interest rate unchanged at their meeting last month after cutting three times in 2019. Forecasts released in December show that most of them expect to stay on hold through 2020, keeping the Fed on the sidelines during a U.S. presidential election year.

Powell told reporters on Jan. 29 that monetary policy is “well positioned” to support growth, labor markets and a return of inflation to the Fed’s 2% target.

On the domestic front, Labor Department data released earlier on Friday showed the U.S. jobs market remains durable. Payrolls increased by a stronger-than-expected 225,000 workers and average hourly earnings climbed 3.1% from a year earlier.

The report also devoted a section breaking down the slowdown of manufacturing in the U.S. in 2019. The Fed attributed the decline to a range of issues including international trade tensions, weak global growth, softer business investment, lower oil prices affecting drillers and the slowdown in production of Boeing Co.’s 737 Max airliner.

While the 2019 decline in manufacturing accounted directly for a 0.15% drop in gross domestic product, Fed economists estimated that number rises 0.5% when adding the impact on purchased inputs and downstream activities, like transport and marketing.

A poor 2019 also comes amid a long-run deterioration of manufacturing in the U.S. as a share of employment and GDP that goes back more than half a century and has continued this century. Factory output has grown just 0.5% a year since 2001, with only two of those years recording gains greater than 3.5%.

The S&P 500 index halted a four-day rally, but still notched its best week since June. The latest jobs report showed hiring stayed robust last month, bolstering optimism growth can persist. But stocks remained lower after reports of further infections, an increase in deaths and more quarantines.

The Federal Reserve warned the outbreak posed a “new risk” to the economy. The fallout for companies is starting to come into focus, with corporations such as Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co. temporarily halting operations in China. Apple Inc.’s iPhone maker Foxconn told employees not to return to work when China’s extended break ends Monday.

The 10-year Treasury yield slumped below 1.6% and crude lost its grip on $51 a barrel.

“The market moved up so quickly over the last few days and I think papered over the continued risk associated with the coronavirus,” said Robin Anderson, senior global economist at Principal Global Investors. “There’s still a lot of unknowns out there.”

Australia’s dollar dropped to its lowest level in a decade with the fallout from the coronavirus hurting riskier assets. Equities pushed lower across most of Asia as news of further infections on a cruise ship off Japan offered another reminder that cases remain on the rise. Singapore boosted its disease response to the second-highest level, the same one for the SARS epidemic. Confirmed cases worldwide now total 31,432, having risen more than 3,000 in one day, while the death toll reached 638.

Meanwhile, the presidents of China and the U.S. reaffirmed their commitment to the implementation of a phase-one trade deal in a phone call Friday.

And these are the main moves in markets:

– – –

– The S&P 500 index decreased 0.5% as of 4 p.m. New York time.

– The Nasdaq 100 fell 0.5%.

– The Stoxx Europe 600 index declined 0.3%.

– The MSCI AC Asia Pacific index fell 0.7%.

– – –

– The Bloomberg Dollar Spot index gained 0.2%.

– The British pound fell 0.3% to $1.2896.

– The euro fell 0.3% to $1.0946.

– The Japanese yen strengthened 0.2% to 109.77 per dollar.

– – –

– The yield on 10-year Treasuries fell seven basis points to 1.57%.

– The two-year rate dropped to 1.4%

– Britain’s 10-year yield fell one basis point to 0.57%.

– Germany’s 10-year yield dipped two basis points to -0.39%.

– – –

– West Texas Intermediate crude fell 1% to $50.42 a barrel.

– Gold futures added 0.3% to $1,574.20 an ounce.

– Copper fell 1.7% to $2.55 a pound.

The effect of the virus is seen as a factor tipping the economy downward for a second quarter at the start of 2020, prompting economists to revise their forecasts this week. Figures out Friday showed household spending deteriorating, suggesting that the economy already contracted more than first thought at the end of last year.

Aberdeen Standard Investments economist Govinda Finn is among those taking a dim view for the whole year, not just in a worst-case scenario but in his baseline view. He now forecasts a contraction of 0.2% in 2020, though he pins more of the blame on policy than the virus. He says the government should have done more to support the economy from the blow of October’s sales tax hike and weak overseas demand.

“If the Ministry of Finance could learn one lesson from the Bank of Japan, it’s that expectations matter,” said Finn, who characterized Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s stimulus package as more of the same rather than a ramping up of spending. The effectiveness of stimulus is weaker if the government waits until the global economy is in recession before acting, he added.

Abe said earlier Friday he would tap budgeted reserves to put together emergency spending measures next week in response to the coronavirus outbreak.

Economists polled by Bloomberg in a survey released Friday estimate that the economy shrank an annualized 4% in the last quarter. Those forecasting a contraction in the first quarter and a recession are still a small minority, and the median forecast for 2020 is for 0.5% growth.

“The reality is the industrial cycle — if you look at the production data, it’s still poor. We’re not seeing a turnaround there,” said Finn. “Inventory levels, inventory shipment levels are high. There’s nothing in there that gives me any comfort.”

Payrolls increased by 225,000 after an upwardly revised 147,000 gain in December, according to a Labor Department data Friday that topped all estimates of economists. The jobless rate edged up to 3.6%, still near a half-century low, while average hourly earnings climbed 3.1% from a year earlier.

The dollar maintained gains, yields on the 10-year Treasury were lower and U.S. stocks declined from a record high as investors remained focused on the potential economic fallout from the coronavirus that has now claimed more than 600 lives.

Annual revisions to historical data took some shine off one of Trump’s main bragging points, cutting the 2018 job gain to 2.31 million from 2.68 million. The 2017 and 2019 gains were about 2.1 million, meaning each year under Trump — while still strong — has been slightly slower than the 2.35 million rise in the final year of the Obama administration.

Despite the revisions, the report shows the economy has retained strength, which Trump has heralded as a key tenet of his re-election campaign and this week in his State of the Union address. The solid hiring defies expectations for a step down to a slower pace of job growth as businesses delay investment, and exceeded the 175,000 average monthly gain for 2019.

The pace also supports Fed policymakers’ view of the labor market as strong, and is more than sufficient to keep up with population growth. At the same time, Boeing’s halt on production of the troubled 737 Max airplane and fears of the coronavirus spreading are likely to weigh on the U.S. economy in coming months.

Average hourly earnings rose 0.2% from the prior month, slightly less than estimated but an acceleration from the December reading.

Payroll gains were broad-based and topped the median estimate for 165,000. Education and health services employment added 72,000, while transportation and warehousing rose by the most in a year.

“This is a steady-as-she-goes number,” Societe Generale U.S. Rates Strategy Head Subadra Rajappa said on Bloomberg Television. “Broadly speaking, this doesn’t really change the outlook on employment.”

The unexpected job strength also reflects robust gains in weather-sensitive sectors including construction, which climbed by 44,000 for the strongest growth in a year in an unseasonably warm month.

Weekly hours worked held at 34.3 hours for a third month, matching the lowest level for most of the past decade. Economists look to hours worked for early signs of labor market softening as companies often cut hours before laying off workers.

In a positive sign, the participation rate, or share of working-age people in the labor force, increased to the highest since 2013. For prime-age Americans, age 25 to 54, the rate climbed to an 11-year high.

Other highlights:

– The drop in payrolls for manufacturers was steeper than estimated, driven by a decrease in payrolls for motor vehicles and parts workers.

– Private employment, or hiring at companies, climbed by 206,000, topping estimates. Government payrolls climbed by 19,000 for the best gain since August.

– The U-6, or the underemployment rate, climbed to 6.9% from 6.7%. This measure includes part-time workers who’d prefer a full-time position and those who aren’t actively looking, therefore offering a more comprehensive view of the health of the labor market.