US Created 911,000 Fewer Jobs Than Previously Thought in the 12 Months Through March (nbcnews.com)
- Reference: 0179109184
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/09/09/1513203/us-created-911000-fewer-jobs-than-previously-thought-in-the-12-months-through-march
- Source link: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/911000-fewer-jobs-created-april-2024-march-2025-bls-says-rcna230065
> The number of jobs created in the United States from April 2024 to March 2025 was [1]revised down by 911,000 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics . That would roughly amount to 76,000 fewer jobs created each month of the year up until March. The revision draws fresh attention to the weakening U.S. labor market, which added an average of only 29,000 jobs in each of the three most recent months.
>
> The August jobs report showed that the U.S. added only 22,000 jobs that month and also revised June's job growth down to a loss of 13,000 jobs. Those datapoints have led economists and some policymakers to conclude that the U.S. labor market is now at a standstill. "The jobs engine that has been integral to U.S. economic growth defying expectations for the past four years is stalling," Sarah House, a senior economist at Wells Fargo, said in a note on Friday.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/911000-fewer-jobs-created-april-2024-march-2025-bls-says-rcna230065
Shouldnt be surprising (Score:2)
""The jobs engine that has been integral to U.S. economic growth defying expectations for the past four years is stalling," Sarah House, a senior economist at Wells Fargo, said in a note on Friday."
This shouldnt be at all surprising to anyone as this current administration with its blank check from congress has been going out of its way to hurt our economy.
Re: (Score:2)
This is revisions to the Biden-era numbers. Im a full-time Trump-hater, but this just validates what many of us have been saying for awhile now: the positive economic numbers from the last 18+ months have been a mirage. The economic under Biden was not actually that good, and under Trump its getting worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Whether things are getting better or worse depends on your perspective.
If you are a common worker-bee who depends on your job to earn a living, yes, things are getting worse.
But the SNP500 (and other similar indexes) have been doing quite well over this same period, and since then. If you have a lot of money invested, then the economy is doing quite well for you.
Also, if you are an employer, you no longer have to compete to hire talent. Now, talent competes to be hired by you. You can keep salaries and p
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, stocks have been doing very well, but there is also inflation to offset it, which will continue. The dollar has been going down a lot, and the tariffs are going to affect many goods.
Re: low salaries, no perks, and overwork - those with enough investments will take themselves out of the labor market rather than put up with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, my thoughts were off when I wrote that as obviously most of this was under Biden. Never the less, Trump is doing everything he can to disrupt the economy and make this problem worse.
Re: (Score:1)
That's why the firing of Erika McEntarfer shouldn't have been made into a political issue: she had a track record throughout Biden's term of vastly overinflating the jobs number. Who knew what else has been inflated...
Re: (Score:2)
Depends how we qualify "good" there have been countless articles on the "vibecession". The data says one thing; low UE, rising wages, strong stock markets, manufacturing jobs were up, GDP was up, and most of all when people were polled about their personal situation most people responded positively.
The next question to those same folks was how they felt about the economy in general and it was pretty negative. Now the question is if that disconnect is real or mostly still just vibes, a media concoction. I
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you take at face value a revision of Biden-era job numbers, immediately after Trump fired and replaced the BLS chief explicitly because he published jobs numbers Trump didn't like, is....
Well, it's certainly a choice.
Re: (Score:3)
Even worse, the Trump Administration is selling this as a good thing. They're arguing that a lot of these losses are from negative aspects of our economy, such as bloated government and undocumented workers, and from areas that are readjusting to economic shifts triggered by the tariffs (read: onshoring).
But onshoring isn't really happening at the rate Trump wants because of low confidence that the tariffs will remain as-is in four years, because of supply chain issues with manufacturing equipment, because
Re: (Score:2)
> But onshoring isn't really happening at the rate Trump wants because of low confidence that the tariffs will remain as-is in four years, because of supply chain issues with manufacturing equipment, because government dependencies such as permits, grants, and infrastructure are in chaos because of cuts, and because it takes a long time to stand everything up. So a lot of companies are just eating the costs of tariffs and shutdowns and cutting elsewhere (read: layoffs) just so that they can survive and regroup after Trump.
It's almost like the problems Trump claims he's solving are far more complex then he's telling anyone and most definitely can't be resolved with his overly simplistic "solutions" :) .
"You're Fired!" (Score:4, Insightful)
> "The jobs engine that has been integral to U.S. economic growth defying expectations for the past four years is stalling," Sarah House, a senior economist at Wells Fargo, said in a note on Friday
I know who's getting fired by the President next.
Re: (Score:2)
If things keep going like they are people like this will be lucky if they don't get sent to "Alligator Alcatraz" or locked up in some sort of hell hole El Salvadorian prison.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually he won't, because they already are using this as messaging that the Biden administration (and the already fired BLS exec) were lying about job numbers the whole time in order to make Biden look good going into the election.
Now this is where we can't trust the revisal - is it to justify the dismissal, or is it real, or is it both?
Nothing is trustworthy anymore, to the extent it ever was in the first place.
Re: (Score:1)
Trump already fired the head of the BLS before this for this exact reason.
More job losses are coming (Score:3)
Specifically, the jobs of statisticians in BLS are now very precarious. You don't contradict Dear Leader Trump Jong Un...
Re: (Score:2)
Is it the statisticians or the data collection system?
Something is clearly broke.
Re: (Score:2)
The initial estimates are based on surveys. The later revisions are based on actual state government figures, and are still a bit of an estimate because those figures are mostly on unemployment, not employment. They might mix in some income tax data too.
The more accurate bits of that have lag time. Do you want to have to report every job opening, hire, fire, etc. to the government the day it happens?
Re: (Score:2)
> Do you want to have to report every job opening, hire, fire, etc. to the government the day it happens?
This is how it happens in most other countries outside the US. Every single employer regardless of size have to report hirings and firings to their local IRS, so there is no need to conduct surveys and estimates since the actual real number is always known.
Re: (Score:2)
> Is it the statisticians or the data collection system?
> Something is clearly broke.
What's broke is the administration. They're changing what is reported in order to confuse people.
Obvious response... (Score:2)
You're fired...
Someone's busy at his new job (Score:1)
> The number of jobs created in the United States from April 2024 to March 2025 was revised down by 911,000 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
I see Trump's newly installed director of said Bureau of Labor Statistics is hard at work creating "the right numbers".
Re: (Score:2)
Trump's "new director" isn't confirmed by Congress yet. It's still the Biden folks producing these numbers. All this conflation about not trusting "Trump's numbers" is misguided.
Re:Someone's busy at his new job (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the first time we've been seeing this, imo extremely bad, idea that the folks at BLS are "Biden folks" or anyone's folks when 99% of people there are just normal public servants who serve under whichever admin.
Who do we think published all the terrible inflation and other data from 2021 when Biden was just starting? Were those "Biden folks"? This is the first time I can remember that someone wanted to politicize BLS so much and that says something, something not good.
Re: (Score:3)
It's clear that you haven't spent much time around D.C. Everybody at the top of every organization gets replaced when a new Administration comes in. True, the rank-and-file are generally long-term employees, but their direction comes from the top.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah that's why I said "99%" sure the administrator usually gets swapped but we don't generally see such political influence over those picks. Can anyone name the last few BLS admins? No because it's a pretty droll and straightforward position and previous admins want a numbers wonk in there.
If you are an honest President trying to do the right thing by the country the only thing you want from BLS is accuracy, accuracy so you can make the right economic decisions. Bill Beach was the Commissioner from 201
Re: (Score:2)
Consistency is more important than accuracy. The trend, is what matters. Is it improving, crashing? How quickly is it changing?
The economy is a ship that can only be steered while looking backwards. You can't see what is ahead, but can see where you were. Over time you can see if you are closer or farther from your target course.
The current proposals to change the methodology of measurement to get "better numbers" makes this qualitative comparison invalid. We won't be able to say if it is getting close
Re: (Score:2)
> Consistency is more important than accuracy.
Hard disagree, this is data, the BLS has statistics in the name for a reason, what we want out of them is the most accurate numbers to match to reality for jobs and other numbers as possible.
The number of jobs created in a month is a question with answer that 100% matches reality. We can't logistically have that number 100% but we want it to be as close to it as possible.
We can only look backwards but we have enough backwards data that reasonable predictions of the future are possible Now we're in the so
Re: (Score:2)
That's right. And the new BLS administrator is almost certain to figure out why the long-term employees have been consistently producing wildly inaccurate results, and remedying that situation one way or another. But it's unlikely they'll be able to do that until confirmed. Until then, we're likely to continue getting inaccurate results.
Re: (Score:2)
The BLS commissioner serves a four-year term. They do NOT get replaced every time a new administration takes office; Trump's action is unprecedented.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The commissioner for the first half of the Biden administration was appointed by Trump.
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Labor_Statistics#Commissioners
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Beach_(economist)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I think the real issue here is that Trump is initiating radical economic changes on an already shaky economy.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be suggestion one of two things. Either A) these new revisions are politically motivated and false or B) Trump has some ability for his current actions to affect past results.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't know that threatening people with their jobs unless they do whatever it takes to make you happy only works on new folks.
Re: (Score:2)
The people at the BLS saw what happened to the BLS director when he didn't produce "the right numbers". They know what they have to do if they want to keep their jobs: produce "the right numbers".
The WH said a couple days ago: "we've got to do a lot better job of collecting and and uh fixing and seasonally adjusting the data". [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
They said it themselves: we must fix the numbers! Get with the program folks!
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYyjwCzJHik
Well, we know the answer to that (Score:2)
Trump's gonna fire everybody in the BLS!
Re: (Score:2)
Trump will run the BLS himself from the Oval Office
Possible timeline??? (Score:5, Informative)
August 1, 2025 - BLS July jobs report shows U.S. added 73,000 jobs, below market expectations
August 1, 2025 - Trump fires BLS commissioner
August 11, 2025 - Trump appoints new BLS commissioner
September 5, 2025 - BLS August jobs report shows U.S. added only 22,000 jobs in August. Unemployment rate rises slightly to 4.3 percent.
(in between guess: Cheeto Bonito told new BLS commissioner to walk or put out something that would make U.S. citizens forget the August jobs report)
September 9, 2025 - BLS announces hiring was overstated by 911,000 from April 2024 to March 2025.
Note the common theme that many... (Score:2)
people seem to be missing in these firings of federal government statistics people:
In the cases so far, we're talking about a YEAR of data, and not a year back from NOW, but rather going back a year from this past spring - so we're looking at a scenario in which the numbers produced made the nation's economic health look much better through the entire 2024 election cycle than it actually was, and then getting "corrected" (oopsie, an honest mistake, no politics here, move along...) after the new president to
Sigh.... (Score:2)
Trump to the people at BLS: "You make last year's numbers look like shit. Doesn't matter what they really are."
That should be the beginning and end of what anybody really thinks happened here. And before anybody deluges me with weird little rabbit holes, I don't care. Ask yourself, what is the most likely scenario here? That the BLS group is diligently examining last year through a critical and dispassionately neutral eye? Or that they're pleasing their master?
The problem is, if there is a floor beneath whi
Orwellian (Score:2)
It's a real Ministry of Truth problem. Why didn't anyone warn us this kind of stuff could happen?
It's thought (Score:2)
It's thought that US created fewer jobs than previously thought.
You're Fired! (Score:2)
Time for Trump to fire another statistician whose numbers he doesn't like.
Recession coming? (Score:1)
From the WSJ article"
"The annual revisions also tend to be large at the start of recessions," [1]https://www.msn.com/en-us/mone... [msn.com]
that doesn't sound good.
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/u-s-added-911-000-fewer-jobs-in-the-year-ended-in-march/ar-AA1McjRX
We have always been at war with Oceania (Score:2)
And the chocolate ration has been increased.
It's difficult to believe (Score:5, Insightful)
It's difficult to believe the numbers coming out of this administration, especially when reporting about the prior administration.
This is clickbait (Score:5, Insightful)
So the job numbers get revised down every time and they get revised down by consistent amounts. So it doesn't really matter that they're getting revised down because anyone doing any sort of planning is taking that into account.
The real problem is the job market has completely collapsed while at the same time the Trump administration is withholding hundreds of billions of dollars of congressionally approved funds and has fired thousands of federal workers.
Any economist no matter how stupid they are is going to tell you that is the exact opposite of what you should be doing during a downturn in the job market.
But Trump wanted 4 trillion in tax cuts for the 1,000 billionaires in this country and in order to ram that through Congress he had to do something. The tariffs are part of that too.
If you voted for Trump you voted to raise your taxes by about $2,000 a year minimum. Do you have a couple hundred dollars a month you can give trump? You're about to find out whether you like it or not...
Re:This is clickbait (Score:5, Insightful)
> If you voted for Trump you voted to raise your taxes by about $2,000 a year minimum. Do you have a couple hundred dollars a month you can give trump? You're about to find out whether you like it or not...
No only that but apparently "you" also voted for saddling future generations with even more debt then they would have had otherwise so we're not even getting less national debt for all the cuts and extra taxes we'll all essentially pay through these tariffs.
It's unbelievable how many still support this guy when so many of his actions have been contrary to the wellbeing of the vast majority of Americans.
Okay I'll take the bait (Score:1)
We could pay off the national debt in a few decades if we switched to a single-payer healthcare system and used the half trillion dollars a year in the savings the Congressional budget office advised we'd get.
So come on Mr fiscal conservative are you now in supportive universal Health care? I'm guessing not because those people would be getting healthcare too. I don't know who you're those people are but I know you've got them.
Or we could just repeal all of Trump's tax cuts for the rich and take bac
Re: (Score:2)
> I don't support tax increase for anybody. I super cutting the federal government by half. At a minimum.
Starting with the Military and prisons, presumably.
Re:Okay I'll take the bait (Score:4, Insightful)
Cut the federal government by half?
Here are the top line spending numbers for the 2025 fiscal budget:
Social Security: 36%
Medicare: 22%
Medicaid: 15%
Income Security: 9%
Veterans' Benefits: 5%
Federal Civilian and Military Retirement: 5%
So that's already 92% of the federal budget outlays. Pick who you want to be in the poor house: elderly people who paid into Social Security and want the promise that they've been told their entire lives kept, or do you want to fuck over veterans again?
Are you going to take away medical care from poor people, old people, veterans, and the disabled?
Are you going to just let people die in the streets while complaining about homeless people that you made homeless with your arbitrary spending cut goal of >50% of the budget?
I'm assuming you will find none of those options agreeable, so let's have a look at discretionary spend:
Defense: $895 billion
Non-Defense Discretionary: $711 billion
Are you going to liquidate the US Navy?
Are we done building and maintaining federal highways?
Are we done funding and operating the US Postal Service? Oh, that's mandated by the Constitution, so probably not.
Do you see where this is going? You cannot cut that much without stupendously fucking over the entire economy and upsetting tens of millions of people's lives which is why all the Repugnants always talk about super deep cuts but never deliver them - talk is easy, doing it is impossible.
Re: (Score:1)
> We could pay off the national debt in a few decades if we...
Who is this we that you speak of??
I mean, you're not American and don't even live here....so, please drop the "we" you keep using.
That being said, I wonder how much of these numbers for jobs are being affected by the growingly successful purging of workers that are in the US illegally....?
I wonder if over a period of time as actual US citizens start taking back jobs, say like in construction...if this will start to balance things out a bit....?
Re:Okay I'll take the bait (Score:4, Informative)
> [...] I wonder how much of these numbers for jobs are being affected by the growingly successful purging of workers that are in the US illegally....?
I'm going to speculate few to none. The second Trump administration claims to have deported [1]about 140,000 people. [wikipedia.org] That doesn't square with a loss of 911,000 jobs.
There might be some job-loss due to undocumented workers being deported, leading to labor-costs rising, and resultant shrinkage in the job market. But 911,000 jobs? Doubtful.
> I wonder if over a period of time as actual US citizens start taking back jobs, say like in construction...if this will start to balance things out a bit....?
It needs to be said that there are plenty of legal workers in the USA who are not citizens, but who are instead permanent residents, are on various work-eligible visas, or are refugees with temporary status. Let's not try to equate work eligibility with citizenship exclusively, h'mkay?
And my guess is that some legal US residents may fill whatever jobs the undocumented deportees had to abandon. But I doubt there'll be a rush, because many of those jobs pay poorly and US residents don't want them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_in_the_second_Trump_administration#:~:text=The%20Trump%20administration%20has%20claimed,at%20roughly%20half%20that%20amount.
Re: (Score:1)
> I wonder if over a period of time as actual US citizens start taking back jobs, say like in construction...if this will start to balance things out a bit....?
hahahahhaa you expect lazy cunt Republican voters to do shit jobs like harvesting fruit and framing windows?
There is zero evidence supporting that conclusion, but you do you.
Re: (Score:2)
> We could pay off the national debt in a few decades if we switched to a single-payer healthcare system and used the half trillion dollars a year in the savings the Congressional budget office advised we'd get.
You couldn't, but it would be a decent start. The US national deficit is 1.6 trillion (so far) in 2025. You have to save (or increase revenue) that much per year to break even. THEN you can start paying off debts.
Who said that? Behead her! (Score:2)
"Ah, I love the smell of 'Live and let scam' in the morning!"
They already fired the first messenger with awkward employment news--but this news seems much worse.
My fresh joke is actually related to the Japanese expression for firing someone. The literal wording involves hitting or doing the neck, and the allegorical meaning is beheading. That was the normal form of capital punishment for offensive peasants in the Edo Period. Unfunny detail, but even for the upper class criminals given the dignified option o
Re: (Score:2)
> As regards your [skam240's] comment, your quoted use of "you" was confusing.
I put "you" in quotation marks as I was continuing with the language rsilvergun was using and not addressing rsilvergun himself. Without the quotes it would imply I was talking about rsilvergun which I was not.
Re: This is clickbait (Score:1)
" "you" also voted for saddling future generations with even more debt then they would have had otherwise"
Wasn't that the argument when Reagan ran up unprecedented debt, yet haven't taxes gone down (Bush and Trump tax cuts) while US stocks continue to set record highs?
So can we dispense with that argument, when you are paying less taxes than under Reagan, despite the debt having increased over 500%?
Re: (Score:2)
> " "you" also voted for saddling future generations with even more debt then they would have had otherwise"
> Wasn't that the argument when Reagan ran up unprecedented debt, yet haven't taxes gone down (Bush and Trump tax cuts) while US stocks continue to set record highs?
Reagan increased the debt. Cutting taxes contributed to increasing it further. Do you not see that?
And BTW, the stock market is not the fiduciary measure of the economy that you seem to think it is.
> So can we dispense with that argument, when you are paying less taxes than under Reagan, despite the debt having increased over 500%?
And I think we can dispense with your argument, because as I have shown, it makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
The federal deficit has gone down under every democrat president since Reagan.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy to do when proceeding Republican administrations spend like drunken sailors on military while cutting revenue - all you have to do is pass a spending package that rescinds some of the ridiculous spending or poorly-considered tax cuts and you have less deficit.
I guess Democrats should be thanking the GOP for making it so easy for them?
Re: (Score:2)
> It's unbelievable how many still support this guy when so many of his actions have been contrary to the well being of the vast majority of Americans.
I can think of several reasons people voted for / support Trump - now anyway* - and none paint a flattering picture of those supporters.
(*I can see and forgive giving him the benefit of the doubt for the first election, but not a moment since then.)
Re: (Score:2)
> (*I can see and forgive giving him the benefit of the doubt for the first election, but not a moment since then.)
No kidding. After we all saw what he did with his first term it's a testament to the effectiveness of the conservative spin doctors out there that so many thought Harris would be anywhere near as bad for our country as Trump let alone more so. He even said he was going to do a lot of the idiocy and awfulness he's dong now when he was campaigning so a lot of this stuff isnt even surprising.
Re: (Score:2)
> If you voted for Trump you voted to raise your taxes by about $2,000 a year minimum. Do you have a couple hundred dollars a month you can give trump? You're about to find out whether you like it or not...
The 2017 Trump tax cuts were about to expire. Every person reading this would have been paying several thousand more a year in taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a lie. The 2017 tax changes raised my taxes considerably, mostly because of the removal of SALT. So "every person reading this" is incorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the real reason the numbers were revised down was to make Trump look "not so bad".
The head of the BLS was fired for making Trump look bad. A Trump crony was put in her place, and the whole reason they revised the numbers from the previous administration downwards is to make the numbers under Trump look better.
That's the only reason for this - because if the Biden numbers were really that bad, the old head of the BLS would've revised those numbers much earlier.
The numbers are being fudged because they
Re: This is clickbait (Score:2)
> The head of the BLS was fired for making Trump look bad. A Trump crony was put in her place, and the whole reason they revised the numbers from the previous administration downwards is to make the numbers under Trump look better.
Except the new head is responsible for the numbers that make Trump look worse - These numbers don't make Trump look better...
> That's the only reason for this - because if the Biden numbers were really that bad, the old head of the BLS would've revised those numbers much earlier.
Except, of course, the woman you say "would have revised these numbers down" if they were really this bad was, in fact, the woman inflating the numbers... come on, try and keep up - why would she inflate then revise her own numbers? It's really an either/or proposition.
> The numbers are being fudged because they made Trump look bad, so he fired the BLS head and replaced her with a crony who's now revising the numbers so Trump's numbers don't look as bad.
Explain to me how these revised numbers make Trump look better? Trump is represented in 2 of the 12 months that were
Re: This is clickbait (Score:2)
> But Trump wanted 4 trillion in tax cuts for the 1,000 billionaires in this country
What a completely stupid statement.
Do you really think Trump is giving each of the 1,000 US billionaires a $4BN tax cut? Really? Do you understand how taxes work?
BTW, a big part of the Trump Tax Cuts he recently passed kept the increased standard deduction he passed in his first term and which Biden left in-place (despite Democrats saying the tax cuts would cripple the economy and explode the national debt when it passed!), and had he let the tax cuts "for billionaires" expire I guarantee your personal inco
Re: (Score:2)
> and explode the national debt when it passed!
National debt when the Trump tax cuts were signed into law: $20.5T
National debt today (8 years later): 37.5T
Increase in 8 years: $17T, or +54.6%
I think that probably meets the definition of "exploding the national debt" don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
1. nobody that knows what they are talking about ever claimed $4B in tax cuts for every billionaire - that's taking two numbers that aren't correlated in any way and doing simple division to come up with a completely incorrect conclusion. The corporate tax rate was cut too, and I'm pretty sure a few of them pay taxes into that $4T of total cuts.
2. My overall tax rate would go down, due to the reintroduction of State and Local Tax exemption. My state and counties have me paying a lot of taxes that I used t
Re: (Score:3)
> It's difficult to believe the numbers coming out of this administration, especially when reporting about the prior administration.
The numbers about the prior administration, as reported by the prior administration in 2024, showed revisions reducing job opening by 864k relative to their original reporting.
12/3/24 - Oct 2024 revision: The number of job openings for September was revised down by 71,000 to 7.4 million
10/29/24 - Sep 2024 revisions: The number of job openings for August was revised down by 179,000 to 7.9 million
10/1/24 - Aug 2024 revision: The number of job openings for July was revised up by 38,000 to 7.7 million
9/4/24 -
Re:It's difficult to believe (Score:4, Insightful)
I was thinking the same thing. What sort of an idiot will take US jobs numbers at face value right after Trump fired the Bureau of Labor Statistics chief after he reported numbers that Trump didn't like?
Re:It's difficult to believe (Score:5, Informative)
> Yes, he fired the same person who was ultimately responsible for putting out crap numbers.
US reporting has always been the gold standard. Nobody has accused the BLS of "crap numbers" until Trump decided he didn't like them. It's is so way outside the norms it doesn't even resemble something that could conceivably happen in the US; this is banana republic-level stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
This. Trump wanted bad numbers for Biden not him, magically he now has them after replacing the head of BLS. Trump wanted the fed to lower rates, now they almost have to. All by putting the proper loyalist in place. I also expect Roberts to tow the line and reverse the appeals court tariff ruling in 3, 2, 1. Why, because that is what the orange marshmallow wants.
Re: (Score:1)
*toe the line
Re: (Score:3)
> Nobody has accused the BLS of "crap numbers" until Trump decided he didn't like them.
Anything Trump doesn't like he asserts is a lie, usually done to make him look bad. I get *complaining* about such things, but he always goes too far - and with no good/rational explanation. An adult, especially one who takes responsibility for things, would simply acknowledge the bad news and offer actual ideas to correct them. But this is a guy who graduated from business school and doesn't understand who actually pays tariffs ...
Re: (Score:1)
> Nobody has accused the BLS of "crap numbers" until Trump decided he didn't like them. It's is so way outside the norms it doesn't even resemble something that could conceivably happen in the US; this is banana republic-level stuff.
You only think nobody was complaining because you didn't look. The downward adjustment for all measurements under Biden were noted by people at the time since they were used to send an obviously rosy picture of the events.
Re: (Score:1)
If you even think for two whole seconds how these numbers are estimated due to how the US lacks a consistent registry across all states for this then you would also comprehend why the numbers are constantly revised. Not only was the person fired not incompetent, it was also not that person that summarized this data, it is done by several people. She was just the messenger.
Re: It's difficult to believe (Score:2)
But it's interesting that the revisions are always downward, sometimes by HUGE numbers - funny how they never under-estimated job growth, isn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
TL / DR:
BLS chief: "Jobs are turning bad now."
Trump: "Fake news, you're fired. I'm appointing a January 6th rioter conspiracy theorist to head the BLS!"
BLS today: "Jobs were ALREADY bad!"
Re: (Score:3)
"It's difficult to believe the numbers coming out of this administration,"
Nine months of Biden, three months of Trump, actually ten and two would be more accurate.
So the existing system stopped working at some time in the past. Did the pandemic break it or was it broken well before that?
Shedlock and Denninger have both been screaming "these numbers make no sense" for well over a year.
Re: It's difficult to believe (Score:1)
When the margin of error is plus-or-minus 500k jobs, why are we even talking about these surveys? What is the refusal rate?
Re: (Score:2)
The NBC reporting fails to ask an important question, is there a statistical analysis or underlying data-collection reason for the revision? At minimum the super-fine-tuned BS-detector you claim to be using should look for a counter-factual just to be sure this isnt a "vibe" reaction.
For a little more information [1]WSJ asked the BLS folks about reasons and here's what they reported [wsj.com]:
> For its monthly jobs figures the BLS relies on a survey of about 121,000 employers. The BLS on Tuesday said that its research suggested the overestimation of employment was likely the result of two factors. First, businesses within its survey reported higher employment in its survey than they did in their quarterly tax reports. Second, businesses that responded to its survey had stronger employment than those that had been selected for the survey but didn’t respond.
If this statement is to believed (and you may be correct about the pressure applied by Trump's staff, but I doubt the full magnit
[1] https://www.wsj.com/economy/jobs/us-job-growth-revision-a9777d98
Re: (Score:2)
> It's difficult to believe the numbers coming out of this administration, especially when reporting about the prior administration.
But you can be sure that if the numbers stay / keep going down, someone at BLS will be getting fired (again). /s
Re: (Score:2)
The released numbers are believable.
First, the numbers are ALWAYS revised after their initial release; sometimes up, sometimes down -but ALWAYS revised.
Second, the revisions are within the predicted error bars.
Third, we knew the economy was trending down over the past year. We could see it in the run up to the election. We could see it in the aftermath of the election. We could see it happening after Trump took office. Uncertainty and fear are not good for business. The trend will continue.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, they lied about inflation, why not job creation?