- This topic has 13 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
I’ve found this fascinating. The US has not had a string of downward revisions in employment numbers (unemployment, and payrolls) this long, ever. Now there’s a chance that there could be a downward revision of yearly payrolls of almost a million jobs. That would be an astonishing number (most revisions are in the five figure to low six figure range). If there’s something fishy going on at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there should be an investigation.
-
That’s easy. It’s called Bidenomics
“I remember that one fateful day when Coach took me aside. I knew what was coming. "You don't have to tell me," I said. "I'm off the team, aren't I?" "Well," said Coach, "you never were really ON the team. You made that uniform you're wearing out of rags and towels, and your helmet is a toy space helmet. You show up at practice and then either steal the ball and make us chase you to get it back, or you try to tackle people at inappropriate times." It was all true what he was saying. And yet, I
-
Saw that this morning. It would be the largest revision in 15 years. Someone’s been monkeying with the numbers.
They’re blaming the “birth-death” model of new businesses opening versus new businesses closing — it’s basically just an estimate, and they’re claiming they’re still learning how to estimate the numbers post-COVID. The new data is the real accurate data. The Bureau of Labor Statistics bases it upon state employment tax records…that number cannot be challenged.
Incidentally, this number is presented once a year, as of March 31. So the economy has been cooling for much, much longer than expected.
Over the last year, unemployment has risen from 3.4% to 4.3%.
Amazing. Somehow, the Biden economy is much, much worse than they’ve been selling us. Heaven forfend.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
-
-
-
Final job growth revision: down 818,000 jobs. Yikes.
Job growth set to be revised down by 818,000 jobs (msn.com)
Audaces fortuna iuvat
-
It actually wasn’t that bad, only double what is normal (-6%), rather than potentially triple. It also gives the Fed flexibility for a larger rate cut. The curious thing was the 30+ minute delay in releasing the number. I guess you had to balance the need to keep the number below an important psychological number (1M), and the need for a large enough number to justify a large rate cut, right before an election….
-
-
-
-
-
-
https://x.com/Geiger_Capital/status/1832043406610088117
You would think this is a big story, but it isn’t.
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.