- This topic has 17 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
https://x.com/Geiger_Capital/status/1951261162408124427
If this is a play to lower interest rates, I will be angry. At what point are these statistics meaningless? I haven’t seen an explanation for these rather large adjustments.
-
I’ve been looking but can’t find a satisfactory explanation, other than that (as is typical), lots of reporting entities report past the deadline, it’s very common. The first number is basically a projection that extrapolates what the late reporting entities will say. The revision takes into account all the late-reporting employers…none of whom had good news to report.
So I don’t think they’re gaming the numbers, I think the labor market is legitimately weak.
-
Not sure why you guys couldn’t find any explanation. There were plenty of articles about it.
The early survey only had about a 60% response rate versus the more typical 70 – 75%, so the first estimate leaned heavily on a smaller, less representative group of employers. Later responses, especially from small businesses that were under pressure, revealed much weaker hiring.
On top of that, the seasonal adjustment formulas misread the usual seasonal swings in state and local education jobs (summer break type stuff). There were unusual changes, but the model assumed schools had held on to more staff than they actually did, creating “phantom” gains that disappeared once real data was submitted.
The BLS’s birth–death model (of businesses) also added jobs it expected from new small businesses, when in reality many were shrinking or closing under high interest rates and tariffs. That data is always delayed, so there is an initial assumption in the model based on historical data. When the hard numbers finally arrived, they were much worse than usual.
Combined with slowdowns in manufacturing and temp agencies, these issues made the early numbers look far stronger than they really were.
Meanwhile, Trump of course reverted to his normal behavior (lying) and twisted the timeline of the revisions.
Trump has repeatedly claimed that the BLS issued “phony” strong-looking jobs numbers during the last year of the Biden administration, only to revise them sharply downward right after the 2024 presidential election.
“They announced these phenomenal numbers the two days before the election and a little bit before that, always these great numbers … But after I won the election, then they announced a downward number, in other words, to bring it back to reality,” Trump said.
But Trump’s account of how the jobs report revisions were issued in 2024 is wrong. And the true timeline undermines his claims.
It’s true that the BLS issued a large revision to its jobs tally last year: The agency revealed that the U.S. economy added 818,000 fewer jobs than originally reported for the year ended March 2024.
But that revision did not come after the election, as Trump suggested Tuesday. Rather, it was issued in August 2024 — more than two months before the election, and after then-Vice President Kamala Harris had taken the reins as the Democratic nominee.
Funny how the downward revision was totally accurate last year, when they made the Biden admin look bad — literally on the data Kamala Harris was speaking at the convention — but now that they’re revised downwards during his term, the numbers are bogus. I guess the revisions are only accurate when they suit his propaganda.
But have no fear: we no longer have to worry about the numbers. They will always look good with a Trump crony sycophant in charge of them.
NO MALARKEY
-
Uh, they adjusted the “Biden” numbers down right between Biden dropping out and Kamala ramping up. It was a data dump.
the labor market is weak. I for one think Trump made a tactical mistake in his hissy fit about BLS. He should have used it as further evidence to jawbone the fed, instead he put focus on the data being bad.
and, yeah, I don’t find the jobs numbers trustworthy. Such massive adjustments just kill credibility.
____________________________________________________________
Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work) -
The big Biden adjustment happened in August, 2024 confirming an 818,000 jobs decrease, based upon the once-a-year benchmark revision. Statistically speaking, it is the most accurate figure. It corrects for sampling errors, business openings/closings missed in the monthly sample and misclassification of workers to arrive at the most accurate figure.
Incidentally, that 818,000 figure was reduced to 598,000. Not as well published.
What made it notable is that the typical annual benchmark revision is less than 0.1% whereas this revision was about 0.3% of total civilian employed.
-
To be clear, I was not happy about the misses that started five years ago, and I was not happy with the misses that were just announced (and I anticipate will be announced). Either something was wrong with the methodology (likely), and it needs to be updated / changed, or there is political manipulation going on (less likely, but possible).
Either way, something was deeply wrong at BLS; especially with regard to the GDP figures and inflation figures, which have the greatest effect on the Fed and therefore the lives of ordinary Americans. I don’t think that Trump is the right person to fix it, but I hope he appoints someone who can.
-
https://x.com/AnnaEconomist/status/1955695414029521320
Interesting that Trump appointed EJ Antoni, who I have cited several times to replace the BLS Commissioner. Hopefully he has some good ideas on how to get better data.
-
-
-
Come on Mick. Compare the backgrounds of the Biden appointee to the BLS vs. the guy Trump is expecting to replace her with (E.J. Antoni). Like everyone else in the Trump administration, his number one qualification is loyalty to Trump — not the constitution, not America, not the BLS, or the facts.
Erika McEntarfer was not a Biden loyalist or partisan operative. Her background was as a career labor economist and statistician, with roles at the Census Bureau, the Federal Reserve, and academia. She wasn’t known for political activism or public commentary, and her time at BLS was nonpartisan and methodologically driven.
E.J. Antoni, on the other hand, is not a neutral expert. He’s deeply enmeshed in conservative ideology and media. The guy is literally straight from the Heritage Foundation, Project 2025, and Fox News. Oh, and of course he was at the Capitol on Jan 6th.
His nomination raises serious alarms about potential politicization of BLS data. Color me skeptical that the crap coming out the BLS in the future will be nothing but partisan spin.
NO MALARKEY
-
Headline from the future (probably):
Breaking News October 3, 2025: “Trump viciously attacked the payroll company ADP today for releasing a “totally fake, deep state biased” jobs report, saying “their numbers are so wrong, you wouldn’t believe” and that “never in my life have I seen such a political hack as ADP”.
NO MALARKEY
-
-
The downward pressure on jobs caused by artificial intelligence is neither subtle nor insubstantial, and as AI gains in sophistication, all levels of white-collar jobs except those devoted almost exclusively to strategy are at risk, and many — if not most – will be eliminated.
Let’s take my business for example. If you divide the legal profession into four levels:
- Pure strategy
- Run-the-business with elements of strategy
- Run the business
- Commodity
…the first level will never be overtaken by AI. The fourth level is within three years of being eliminated. Third level is at least five years away, but not more than 10. Second level will be 80% eliminated in 10 years.
So. 2,000 large and regional law firms in the United States. I think half of all lawyers will be unemployed in ten years.
Teach your kids a trade. General contractors and sub-contractors are unlikely to be eliminated any time soon. News flash: the nation’s housing stock is old. Really old. Lots of housing built before and after WWII, housing that needs updating. How to pay for it? That’s another story…
-
-
Here’s the most important graph, covering 70 years of Federal Fund rate movement against unemployment.:
Inflation is the gold line, Fed Funds rate the blue line.
I’d forgotten how high interest rates were in the Reagan era. Also forgot how difficult it was to get a mortgage in 1989 to buy my first place. Haven’t forgotten the subterranean Fed Funds rates gifted to Obama, a sloppy wet kiss from the Fed of the era.
-
https://x.com/zerohedge/status/1965416866601730210
Ugh. At this point, I would rather the Fed increase interest rates, force some fiscal responsibility, and crash everything to reset the economy. Too much rate manipulation has created so many bubbles, so much bad debt, and stealth inflation that it may be time to start over.
Yes, there will be short term pain, but it will be better for the long term.
-
-
Ugh. At this point, I would rather the Fed increase interest rates, force some fiscal responsibility, and crash everything to reset the economy. Too much rate manipulation has created so many bubbles, so much bad debt, and stealth inflation that it may be time to start over. Yes, there will be short term pain, but it will be better for the long term.
I tend to agree with you. Might be time for the Volcker remedy. On the other hand, this society, as a whole, will need a lot of financing if it really intends to reshore manufacturing, eliminate 20% of all jobs because of artificial intelligence, buy and sell houses, make sure old and decrepit people don’t just die, etc.
I think high rates are here to stay.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.