| ▲ | ceejayoz 15 hours ago |
| Note, also: > In yet another troubling sign for the labor market, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said that it revised down the prior two months by a combined 103,000. May’s jobs total was cut by 66,000 to 129,000 total jobs added, while June’s total was lowered by 37,000 to a total gain of 57,000. |
|
| ▲ | hobofan 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I'm not an expert at quantifying the magnitude of how bad that is, but revision down is not something "exceptional". The numbers have been revised down consistently since ~2022: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/06/business/economy/economy-... |
| |
| ▲ | camdenreslink 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | It does make you wonder if the July shedding of jobs could be lowered even further to ~100k+ jobs lost (since they revise down very consistently). | | |
| ▲ | hobofan 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, that wouldn't be a surprise. It looks to me like a failure of the American media landscape, that such constant revisal trends are not called out in the reporting of new numbers.
That just makes them a mouthpiece of the government. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | jcranmer 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| One of the reaction threads I saw elsewhere on social media pointed out the response rates for the surveys that come up with these numbers is plummeting--about a decade ago, we had ~85% response rate, now we're done to ~65% response rate. So the initial quality of these numbers is probably getting a lot worse. |
| |
|
| ▲ | bix6 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| These guys are just nonstop liars. Print the headline, revise when no one is looking. |
| |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | To be fair, revisions are very normal, because the more reliable data (tax filings, for example) comes in later. https://xcancel.com/ernietedeschi/status/1951721848393105573 | | |
| ▲ | Noaidi 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Are they ever revised higher? I'll wait... | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | No wait required; click the link I gave and you'll see the answer is "yes, definitely". Anything over the zero mark on the Y axis is an upwards revision. | | |
| ▲ | Noaidi 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | I did, You do not know how to read a graph. That line through the middel is just showing the trend of jobs numbers. Still waiting. Just find me one article that says "Last months BLS jobs were revised higher". | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | The title of the chart is "Nonfarm Payroll Employment Percent Revisions", with subheading indicating the statistic shown is the final number minus the first released number. The trendline shows the magnitude of the revisions decreasing over time; i.e. that the predictions get more accurate. For a concrete example, as you request: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/05/jobs-report-may-2026.html > In addition to the strong jobs numbers for May, revisions for prior months also presented an even better picture. The April tally represented an upward revision of 64,000, while March got a boost up to 214,000, a gain of 29,000. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/06/business/economy/trump-jo... > What has been unusual during the early months of Mr. Trump’s term is that the revisions have been consistently in the same direction: down. You do not know how to read a graph, it seems. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | smallmancontrov 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The jobs numbers are notoriously laggy. On the way up, lag means constant upwards revisions. On the way down, lag means constant downwards revisions. ADP Payrolls are a lower latency indicator but not quite as broad. | |
| ▲ | pm90 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is how bls data has always worked. And the reason is that they don’t always have the full picture every month and need to account for new data in the stats. | | |
| ▲ | travisgriggs 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Honest ask because I’ve not generally paid attention… Is it the case that the numbers always appear more optimistic, and then are revised to be more pessimistic values? Or is it just that the original numbers are off and are revised? Does that make sense? | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | They move in both directions regularly, typically in the direction the economic situation is moving at the time. Chart: https://xcancel.com/ernietedeschi/status/1951721848393105573 | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | > They move in both directions regularly, typically in the direction the economic situation is moving And for good reason! These are surveys. The easiest respondents are those saying “no change.” The latest responses, the ones who had the biggest change. In a booming economy, the biggest changes will be hires. In a troubled one, the biggest changes will be those doing lay-offs. Add to that: the BLS tries to correct for this effect. Which means at the moment the economy turns, its corrections skew the wrong way. (On the whole, per the above chart, the figures are getting better over time.) |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | vuggamie 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you can do economics without revision, that is, find the real number of jobs lost or gained or workplace participation in real time, you could make a lot of money. Probably win some prizes, too. Economics is an imperfect science. | | |
| ▲ | dismalaf 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | It has nothing to do with economics being an imperfect science and all to do with the nature of collecting real time data. Anyone who can collect accurate real time data can make $$$. |
|
|
