(CNBC) Job growth revised down by 911,000 through March, signaling economy on shakier footing than realized

[Taylor]

Why aren't there dozens of threads about wholesale prices declining? So odd. Interest rates definitely coming down next week.

Yes. We didn't really need another argument for a rate cut, but we got one.

Wall St indexes hit records as Oracle jumps, Fed bets steady on inflation data

The S&P 500 and the Nasdaq scaled fresh intraday record highs on Wednesday driven by a surge in cloud computing firm Oracle, while cooler-than-expected inflation data kept the U.S. Federal Reserve on track to cut borrowing costs this year.

www.reuters.com

 

[Callen]

LOL!! I in fact do understand it. I also understand that a PRELIMIARY ESTIMATE that is so far off the mark is useless. It's statistical malpractice to issue an estimate when you know your sample base is insufficient, and should be issued, at the minimum, with confidence intervals to let everyone know exactly how pointless the preliminary estimates are.

You are trying to defend selling diners dog shit because eventually the chef will serve something edible.

The audience for whom it is intended knows exactly what it is, what it represents and how to use it. The fact the politicians use it as a political tool, both parties all the time, has zero to do with the purpose of the report and it's intended use.

PS LOL is so seventh grade

 

[jmotivator]

Lol, I actually think BLS may have more validity and reliability than his posts.

I still can't quite figure out how they can be so defensive of chronically wrong estimates or the concept that preliminary estimates should, in theory, come somewhere close to reality.

 

[Hello My Son]

(CNBC) Job growth revised down by 911,000 through March, signaling economy on shakier footing than realized
--

--
Several days after Trump's new BLS head took his position, he & Trump - in the Oval Office - announced to reporters he had found the BLS employment data released during Biden's last year in office was overly optimistic and greatly erroneous

Today the BLS seems to be acting upon that claim, officially revising the data from the year previous to MAR of '25 downward by nearly 1M jobs!

Was Donald Trump vindicated? Or, is BLS not to be trusted? You're the judge. The markets, for their part (at the moment), appear to be neutral on the news - as they are virtually flat.

**IN UNRELATED NEWS, THE "BLS" HAS ANNOUNCED THAT THEY ARE DROPPING THE "L" FROM THEIR NAME**

 

[Phys251]

As a reminder:

 

[Callen]

I still can't quite figure out how they can be so defensive of chronically wrong estimates or the concept that preliminary estimates should, in theory, come somewhere close to reality.

When one understands how the data is collected and it's purpose then it is quite clear why is can be off in the preliminary reporting. I don't disagree that there maybe a better way to satisfy the public's need for information on a monthly basis but that is very different from saying it has been deliberately fudged for political purposes.

 

[Hello My Son]

I still can't quite figure out how they can be so defensive of chronically wrong estimates or the concept that preliminary estimates should, in theory, come somewhere close to reality.

Yeah, that is some strong partisan denialism.

 

[ncguy]

I still can't quite figure out how they can be so defensive of chronically wrong estimates or the concept that preliminary estimates should, in theory, come somewhere close to reality.

Unless you have the expertise to improve the process, this may be the best it can do given their resources. Otherwise it's just whining. Where are the improvements from doge? Was musk too busy prancing on stage to actually help?

 

[Visbek]

BLS was not to be trusted before. Nothing has changed. Just a shuffling of the untrustworthy cards.

Yes, because being off by 0.6% is so utterly horrendous that no one can trust them.

I mean sure, if you're an ignorant partisan who touts the BLS numbers when it suits you and attacks them when they don't, and doesn't know how the BLS gathers and analyzes this data, or how BLS is trusted by bankers, government officials, financial experts, CEOs etc around the world, then the agency seems "untrustworthy."

Meanwhile....

The only thing I'd trust is a truly independent evaluation of jobs numbers.

Okay then. How about ADP? It's a private company that handles HR tasks such as paying employees.

10 years, then 5 years, quarterly results. We can see how COVID decimated hiring, then it bounced back for a bit, and has dropped well below normal in the last quarter.

By the way, ADP and BLS numbers usually track pretty closely.

Government handling this is just as untrustworthy as anyone's self-evaluation of their own performance.

This isn't a "self-evaluation." It's just them doing their actual job.

The BLS gets its job data by sending out surveys to 1,200 employers. Those employers don't always send in their reports immediately, which is why the BLS makes adjustments for the previous 3 months.

These annual reports incorporate additional data, which also takes time to gather, such as new unemployment claims.

If you want to see untrusworthy data, just wait 6 months or so.



If they were lying about the data, then why bother to issue corrections in the first place?

 

[Callen]

If they were lying about the data, then why bother to issue corrections in the first place?

Bingo...

 

[jmotivator]

When one understands how the data is collected and it's purpose then it is quite clear why is can be off in the preliminary reporting. I don't disagree that there maybe a better way to satisfy the public's need for information on a monthly basis but that is very different from saying it has been deliberately fudged for political purposes.

Sigh. You're never going to understand the point.

 

[Callen]

Sigh. You're never going to understand the point.

Nor are you...so we move on to 2026 and sees which of us was right.

 

[jpn]

Weird and dishonest post (as usual). I literally said that Trump's BLS isn't trustworthy. Weren't you just whining that I don't ever criticize Trump?
This is why I can't take any of your posts seriously. Your posts are made in such bad-faith and with completely dishonest premises that their value is absolute zero.
Do better if you want to not completely waste your time in posting to me.

How dishonest of you. And weird.

It's totally within your power not to waste your time replying to me. And yet you choose to waste that time anyway.

As I said. Weird.

 

[jpn]

Sigh. You're never going to understand the point.

It's hilarious that you think this is all about accuracy of the BLS.

Do you imagine for a minute that Trump would be having kittens if the revisions had gone in his favor? Would you?

No, of course not. He doesn't give a fig about accuracy--only getting numbers he likes. Just like his elections.

Let's pretend for a minute that Trump really cares about accurate numbers. How does his pick for the new head of the BLS, E.J. Antoni, square with that?

Antoni's fellow conservatives criticized his record as chief economist at the right-wing Heritage Foundation's Hermann Center for the Federal Budget.​

• Antoni's "work at Heritage has frequently included elementary errors or nonsensical choices that all bias his findings in the same partisan direction," Stan Veuger, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, told Axios' Courtenay Brown and Emily Peck.

Dave Hebert, an economist at the conservative American Institute for Economic Research, wrote in a post on X that he's worked with Antoni before and implored the Senate to block the nomination.​

• "I've been on several programs with him at this point and have been impressed by two things: his inability to understand basic economics and the speed with which he's gone MAGA," Hebert said.

Conservative economists have cited examples of Antoni "appearing to misunderstand" the data he would be responsible for as BLS head.​

• Daniel Di Martino, a fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, showed an instance of Antoni citing the rising number of Americans who aren't in the labor force without accounting for the role of the aging population.
• "This is one of the many elementary errors that show me Mr Antoni is unqualified for the labor market data collection and analysis role he was nominated to," Di Martino wrote on X.

Jessica Riedl, a senior Manhattan Institute fellow, shared another example from X, in which Antoni appeared not to know that the BLS' measure of import prices did not account for the impact of tariffs.​

• "The articles and tweets I've seen him publish are probably the most error-filled of any think tank economist right now," she wrote. "I hope we see better at BLS."

In other words, a perfect selection for Trump and his unserious supports.

 

[Hello My Son]

Yes, because being off by 0.6% is so utterly horrendous that no one can trust them.

I mean sure, if you're an ignorant partisan who touts the BLS numbers when it suits you and attacks them when they don't, and doesn't know how the BLS gathers and analyzes this data, or how BLS is trusted by bankers, government officials, financial experts, CEOs etc around the world, then the agency seems "untrustworthy."

Meanwhile....


Okay then. How about ADP? It's a private company that handles HR tasks such as paying employees.

10 years, then 5 years, quarterly results. We can see how COVID decimated hiring, then it bounced back for a bit, and has dropped well below normal in the last quarter.

By the way, ADP and BLS numbers usually track pretty closely.




This isn't a "self-evaluation." It's just them doing their actual job.

The BLS gets its job data by sending out surveys to 1,200 employers. Those employers don't always send in their reports immediately, which is why the BLS makes adjustments for the previous 3 months.

These annual reports incorporate additional data, which also takes time to gather, such as new unemployment claims.

If you want to see untrusworthy data, just wait 6 months or so.



If they were lying about the data, then why bother to issue corrections in the first place?

I'm not reading all that reactionary nonsense.

It's a flawed methodology, through and through, full of sampling errors. I've never touted the BLS numbers no matter what because I know this. If you got a post of me touting it in some partisan way, then post it instead of posting all this overemotional dramatic bullshit.