You might want to read up on the process a little more before forming such strong opinions. The BLS is extremely transparent, at least for now. The earlier reports are intentionally more noisy because there is value is being fast and then revising later, and everyone who uses this data is aware of that.

Calling this a 50% error rate is simply wrong. If an earlier report said a single job had been created and that was later revised to two jobs, that would be super humanly accurate and yet you would be calling for everyone to be fired over the 100% error rate.

▲

deepGem 3 days ago | parent [-]

The earlier reports are intentionally more noisy because there is value is being fast and then revising later, and everyone who uses this data is aware of that.

I get it and yeah my tone is very exaggerated. I don't think anyone in BLS should be fired and whoever is suggesting that does not understand how public institutions work.

I am just curious why there is so much of a discrepancy. This has been pretty much the status quo in BLS for a long time. They issue numbers and then they revise them later. However, you'd expect the revision to be moderately within an error %age.

Also how will this retroactive change help everyone involved. Ok, the new job numbers reflect a gloomier past (or a more vibrant past) how is that even helping everyone who is so focused on 'what's going to happen tomorrow'.

I retract my stance about BLS being intentionally corrupt - that's uncalled for.

	▲	k3vinw 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I disagree. The BLS head was either incompetent or corrupt. The two are not mutually exclusive so they easily could have been both. Firing the BLS head was the obvious choice and it sends the right message to all involved that we will not accept this margin of inaccuracy when it impacts our economy. We need a BLS head with the balls to raise hell when the numbers are not reflecting reality.