Well, it's not even true.

Trump did (baselessly?) fire the BLS head, but it was because of revisions that looked convenient for the last administration.

▲

aDyslecticCrow a day ago | parent | next [-]

Statistics done by a statistics bureau was "revised to look bad"? There are thousands of people collecting billions of data-points all accumulated layer by layer into a summary, compared over different sources. But this year they just decided to make up the numbers instead?

US labor and economics statistics is famously most reliable in the world, going further back in time than any other statistics source. Its not only used by the government but by banks, companies, and international organisations to predict and analyze economic trends.

But surely this year when the numbers looked a bit bad, they made the numbers to intentionally look that way? Simply no. The administration firing the people collection statistics is the real concern. (and its not the first time the administration has removed historical statistics either)

(manual revisions are made in statistics to compensate for anomalies. Companies stocking up on product to escape tariffs created a false peak in GDP that does not correspond to real consumption for example. But that's how statistics work, and the US is the gold standard in proper statitics)

▲

itsoktocry a day ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

	▲	aDyslecticCrow a day ago \| parent [-]
		> I didn't even make a judgement. I beg to differ. First, you made a very clear judgement in your wording; > revisions that looked convenient for the last administration > Trump did (baselessly?) Yes, trumps stated reason is as you summarize. But you made no separation between trumps words and yours. A judgement-less phrasing would look something like; "Well, it's not quite true. Trump did fire the because of revisions to the data that looked favorable for the previous administration." > Then you went off the rails like left wingers tend to do when I would also like to stop you here. This sentence is more dangerous to me than the current administration. You assumed my political stance because i criticize a political leader. You use a political leaning as an insult. The US political landscape is segregated between two opposite extremes that drift further rand further into insanity. I could have seen a equally destructive administration show up on from the democrats. I believe trump is the inevitable consequence of a broken and segregated political system that is no longer able to work together. Useful political discourse stopped being viable decades ago, and the system breaking as quickly as it is (sidestepping congress and balance of power) just means it broke long so. I'm not american, and my idea of democracy looks fundamentally different to yours. To me, the currently sitting administration is the default punching bag regardless of party affiliation, because a good administration will only ever do at most 58% good. You assuming i am "leftist" because i criticize a political figure, shows how truly segregated the system has become (and how deeply rooted you are in it). And for the record; if everything trump said he wanted to do this period was actually what he was doing effectively (home-shore manufacturing, boost the power grid, become more independent from china) i would be stoked right now. But half of his politics are currently speed-running the opposite.

▲

bryanlarsen a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Revisions which were regular standard practice. About ~50% of the revisions made the previous administration look good, and about 50% made them look bad.

▲

itsoktocry a day ago | parent [-]

You are only half reading the news.

Yes, revisions are valid and happen. Yes, a look at historical revisions don't show any bias.

But where are you seeing that half made Trump look good?

https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm

▲

axus a day ago | parent | next [-]

Biden was the previous administration.

▲

teemur a day ago | parent | prev [-]

The whole of trumps first stint?

For this year's numbers there are two possible stories that come to my mind:

1. The jobs are going ~constantly downhill and any new, revised number is going to be worse than previous

2. There is a conspiracy and initially the numbers are systematically inflated and/or afterwards deflated because reasons... that are completely incomprehensible to me. I don't even understand if this conspiracy theory should be pro or against trump.

	▲	itsoktocry 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>The whole of trumps first stint? Is it hard to imagine a world where things from 10 years ago aren't the same as today? Can you not see that politicians will do anything to win? Biggest downward revision ever recorded this morning, by the way.

▲

rurp a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This makes no sense. The initial jobs numbers usually get much more attention than the revised ones, so posted inflated numbers that eventually get revised down helps whoever the current administration is. The recent revisions have gotten unusual attention because of how bad the overall situation is, and from Trump drawing extra attention to them by firing the BLS head and essentially calling for the numbers to be cooked.

What does the last administration even have to do with this? Job growth plummeted under the current administration. I get that Trump blames Biden for everything because he always needs a scapegoat, but am shocked that anyone still gives that any weight given that Trump has very publicly and deliberately created the current economic trouble.

▲

margalabargala a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I mean, that's what's being complained about.

Trump fired a statistician because the numbers reported were politically inconvenient, not because they were incorrect.

▲

lisbbb a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Not baseless--when you're so bad at your job that those huge revisions come in year after year, someone's head should roll.

	▲	axiolite a day ago \| parent [-]
		You've drunk the kool-aid. BLS revisions are no fault of their own, and simply because businesses send in their data whenever they feel like it: "many businesses do not have their payroll data ready to report by the scheduled date that BLS initially releases the data." "BLS continues to collect outstanding reports from the businesses in the sample as it prepares a second and then a third estimate for the month. With each subsequent estimate, more businesses have provided their information." "and occasionally the revised data produce a different picture altogether." https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/revisions-to-jobs-numb... "the revisions aren’t mistakes. They’re a deliberate, transparent part of a statistical process designed to balance two competing goals: providing timely economic information while ensuring the greatest possible accuracy." https://govfacts.org/federal/labor/why-job-numbers-change-ho...