Retail sales fell 0.9% in May, worse than expected as consumers pulled back

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: CNBC

Published Tue, Jun 17 2025 8:33 AM EDT Updated 5 Min Ago


Consumers spending pulled back sharply in May, weighed by declining gas sales and a looming unease over where the economy is headed, the Commerce Department reported Tuesday.

Retail sales declined 0.9%, even more than the 0.6% drop expected from the Dow Jones consensus, according to numbers adjusted for seasonality but not inflation. The decline followed a 0.1% loss in April and came at a time of unease over tariffs and geopolitical tensions. Excluding autos, sales fell 0.3%, also worse than the estimate for a gain of 0.1%.

However, excluding a series of items such as auto dealers, building materials suppliers, gas stations and others, sales increased 0.4%. That reading, known as the control group, is what the department uses when calculating gross domestic product.

Building materials and garden stores saw sales fall 2.7%, while sliding energy prices pushed gasoline station receipts down 2%. Motor vehicles and parts retailers were off 3.5%, while bars and restaurants saw sales declined 0.9%. On the plus side, miscellaneous retailers gained 2.9% while online sales rose 0.9% and furniture stores increased sales by 1.2%.

Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/17/retail-sales-may-2025-.html

---

Article updated.

Previous article -

Published Tue, Jun 17 2025 8:33 AM EDT Updated 1 Min Ago


Consumers spending pulled back sharply in May, weighed by declining gas sales and a looming unease over where the economy is headed, the Commerce Department reported Tuesday.

Retail sales declined 0.9%, even more than the 0.6% drop expected from the Dow Jones consensus. The decline followed a 0.1% loss in April and came at a time of unease over tariffs and geopolitical tensions.

Excluding autos, sales fell 0.3%, also worse than the estimate for a gain of 0.1%. However, excluding a series of items such as auto dealers, building materials suppliers, gas stations and others, sales increased 0.4%. That reading, known as the control group, is what the department uses when calculating gross domestic product.

Building materials and garden stores saw sales fall 2.7%, while sliding energy prices pushed gasoline station receipts down 2%. Motor vehicles and parts retailers were off 3.5%, while bars and restaurants saw sales declined 0.9%. On the plus side, miscellaneous retailers gained 2.9% while online sales rose 0.9% and furniture stores increased sales by 1.2%.

This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.

Original article -

Published Tue, Jun 17 2025 8:33 AM EDT


Retail sales were expected to decline 0.6% in May, according to the Dow Jones consensus.

This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.

[Brainfodder]

1. How's the cannabis sales?

Thought so!



High, that is the answer.

[progree]

2. I'm not seeing the usual 8-10 posts "I don't believe anything the Krasnov junta puts out". Is there something wrong

with my browser or a glitch with DU this morning? Especially considering the Commerce Secretary is Howard Lunatik, who certainly has his share of dubious stories and bizarre quotes. (The retail sales report is put out by the Commerce Dept). Isn't Lunatik the one suggesting that the GDP not include government spending?

By the way, PCE inflation (the Fed's favorite measure, sometimes called "Pissy Inflation" ), due Friday June 27, is put out by the BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis, which is a part of the Commerce Department. I suspect it will come out on the low side, and the "I don't believe anything the Krasnov junta puts out" posts will be back in full abundance.

Unrelated but very interesting from the OP's excerpt:

However, excluding a series of items such as auto dealers, building materials suppliers, gas stations and others, sales increased 0.4%. That reading, known as the control group, is what the department uses when calculating gross domestic product.

That's a little gem factoid I didn't know. Another one of those "where the hell do I file this" facts? In a place where I'll readily find it and won't forget it?

[BumRushDaShow]

3. Could be because

an insane man is basically declaring war... so will have to see how the markets react to that!

And checking... and markets have headed on down.

[ffr]

4. One quarter of economic downturn in the books, one to go before we're officially in another GOP recession

Way to go, whomever voted for these republican clowns and grifters.

Shame on you!

[progree]

5. I'm sorry, but two negative back to back quarters is not the official definition of a recession

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143450417#post20

I can also guarantee that they won't call a recession if the two back-to-back quarters are a negative fraction of a percent.

[ffr]

6. I'm sorry, but that's the way we learned it in economics, as it's the common definition

If you want to split hairs or be argumentative with that point, you can take it up with economists and authors of economic reading materials who wrote study materials from prior to 2008 and who's works applied prior to that. Then you can scream at your television in vain as those people are called to go on shows explaining that we're in a recession.

[progree]

7. "that's the way we learned it in economics, as it's the common definition"

Last edited Wed Jun 18, 2025, 05:01 AM - Edit history (2)

It is no doubt a common definition, but it is NOT the OFFICIAL definition. If you have links that say otherwise, I'll review them. I've supplied my links.

"Then you can scream at your television in vain as those people are called to go on shows explaining that we're in a recession"

I don't watch TV, and I find talking heads the least credible source.

I don't expect to convince you of anything, and I could care less. People reading this dialog can review your lack of links to what you learned in school (LOL) and from TV talking heads, and compare to what the BEA and NBER say. I just don't want my fellow progressives to be misled by Internet memes, that some spread for ideological reasons (like Fox during the Biden administration), no matter how common they are.

From #5: One quarter of economic downturn in the books, one to go before we're officially in another GOP recession

FALSE.

economists and authors of economic reading materials who wrote study materials from prior to 2008 and who's works applied prior to that.

It's 2025, not 2008. I could care less what the official definition was prior to 2008. And I haven't heard that anything changed in the official definition in or around 2008, or before, but I will gladly review any links you supply about the big change.

I also notice that the BLS and BEA, and all other government sources that I've seen, whenever they display graphs that show those gray vertical bands showing recessions -- that those bands coincide with the NBER determinations, not those of TV talking heads and what you think you were taught. You can see that I've reviewed many government statistics and graphs over the decades by pursuing my economics thread that's in my sig line, at
http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439

5. I'm sorry, but two negative back to back quarters is not the official definition of a recession

6. I'm sorry, but that's the way we learned it in economics, as it's the common definition

If any of your august economic professors implied that because something is "the common definition", therefore it's the "official definition", you should have immediately raised your hand and called out the logical fallacy of an appeal to popularity, aka bandwagon fallacy.

[Skittles]

9. you seem very defensive

yes indeed

oh and it's COULDN'T care less, not COULD

[Igel]

8. A good chunk of that month's downturn was because ...

of falling gasoline prices.

Just think of the economic growth if gasoline and energy increased sharply in cost. We'd be raking in the $.