[flagged]

dragontamer 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

The last one fired the BLS head because he didn't like the jobs report?

Now not only are we seeing major job loss, our statisticians are intimidated and likely are no longer reporting the truth. We now have to rely upon shittier metrics because our core numbers are worthless.

▲

logifail 3 days ago | parent [-]

> no longer

Citation needed.

POTUSes come and go, BLS figures have been suspect for a long time.

▲

estearum 3 days ago | parent [-]

BLS figures have been suspect for a long time as of a month ago.

▲

logifail 3 days ago | parent [-]

I'm not sure why you'd claim that. BLS figures have been revised downwards repeatedly over recent years.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/21/economy/bls-jobs-revision...

"US job growth during much of the past year was significantly weaker than initially estimated, according to new data released Wednesday.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ preliminary annual benchmark review of employment data suggests that there were 818,000 fewer jobs in March of this year than were initially reported."

▲

wredcoll 3 days ago | parent [-]

Are you reporting on this breaking news scandal that predictions about future events are not always perfectly accurate?

▲

logifail 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Are you reporting on this breaking news scandal that predictions about future events are not always perfectly accurate?

If the predictions are always (or mostly) wrong but always in one direction then wouldn't one begin to suspect that either a) the model is flawed, or b) that there's goal-seeking behind the scenes?

If there's a recent revision of BLS figures showing a correction of PLUS 900k jobs, I'd love to see it.

▲

dragontamer 3 days ago | parent [-]

> If there's a recent revision of BLS figures showing a correction of PLUS 900k jobs, I'd love to see it.

I know right? It's like the new numbers from the BLS are shit or something.

Trump fires the last guy, and then a month later they claim that Joe Biden lost 900,000++ jobs. A correction of this size that has never happened before.

It's like firing the head of statistics ruins your reputation and intimidates the other accountants into making up numbers that favor your politics.

▲

logifail 3 days ago | parent [-]

Apologies but this isn't unique, nor has it anything specifically to do with the current POTUS. The US jobs figures has had huge revisions downwards before, for instance last year:

https://seekingalpha.com/news/4142722-why-was-there-such-a-b...

"There's still ongoing chatter about the huge revision to U.S. job growth seen yesterday and what it might signify for the economy and markets. 818,000 jobs were wiped out in the 12 months through March 2024 (or 68,000 per month), resulting in the biggest downward adjustment since the global financial crisis."

	▲	dragontamer 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		And this revision this year is even larger. Are you ignorant to the large scale firings from DOGE and other intimidation tactics of this administration? Or are you just trolling with bad discussion points? DOGE firings aren't really going to show up in this data. (The cutoff of March2025 is too new) Intimidation of our statistics teams isn't in the data. You aren't even countering the points I'm bringing up. Everything in context. The problem now is the obvious and direct intimidation applied to our statisticians. Or do you think that Trump actually gives a care about statistical validity? Your point is that you didn't trust statistics before. Cool. Well guess what? These actions have made it worse. Now NOBODY should be trusting these stats. Congrats. You won. You destroyed the trust in our statistical system. That was your goal was it not? I agree with you. The new crop of statistics is suspect. And all our statistics moving forward will continue to be suspect and I'm not sure how to fix the trust problem. However, I trusted things before. And this new state of things is uniquely a consequence of recent events. You are ignoring all the crap that happened this year that leads me to distrust the new results over the old results and reporting.

▲

babblingdweeb 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Regardless of which administration is in place, the BLS (USA) does adjust the numbers every month (for two months after the initial release) and annually. This is fairly common with statistics and forecasting in general.

Regardless if the numbers go up or down, regardless of the administration.

So, yes...the last administration did the same thing, and the administration before that, etc.

▲

CamperBob2 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

They intentionally hired incompetent and/or politically-biased bureaucrats to cook the numbers?

Because that's what we're about to see. A players hire B players, B players hire C players, and Trump hires the rest. The next round of economic reports will be much better, I'm sure. Or else.