Not really. We'd see a lot of resignations if the numbers were being fudged. Statisticians, as a rule, take a dim view of falsifying data.

▲

lovich 5 days ago | parent [-]

We didn’t need to see resignations because they were fired when the numbers weren’t good, in his opinion, previously.[1]

I get that the king does multiple things per day that used to be admin ending but we shouldn’t forget his machinations that are related to the topic at hand.

The data probably isn’t 100% false but it also definitely as trustworthy as it was a year and a half ago.

[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/articles/trump-fired-bls-c...

	▲	disgruntledphd2 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		> We didn’t need to see resignations because they were fired when the numbers weren’t good, in his opinion, previously.[1] I mean no disrespect, but I have been following this story, as I am very interested in the quality of official statistics. He did fire the BLS head, then tried to appoint a toady, but basically the big IB and investors threw a fit (along with some Senators) and it didn't happen. So I regard most of the weirdness in these numbers since Covid as an artifact of the seasonality models breaking down, rather than some nefarious actions.