Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase • Hacker News Board

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#251

Post by tqi » Thu, Jul 03, 2025, 1:34 AM UTC

MangoToupe wrote: post #134

Analemma_ wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The communications from the BLS are quite good and easily understandable. The problem is that the people making these complaints aren't reading those, they're reading the mainstream reporting on the BLS stats, which is extremely lossily-compressed, and then assuming this makes them qualified to criticize the underlying stats. Journalists deserve some flak here for the superficial way they report on the numbers, but a…

> but at some point it's on you to get the real thing before you start trying to correct it. One thing is for sure is that people aren't going to do that. Anyway, it seems disingenuous (or just completely irrelevant) to complain that people are attacking the BLS rather than how this is wielded to perpetrate a polemic.

My point is one doesn't have to go to the original sources, they simply have to ask themselves "is it likely no one has thought of this before?" before launching into a criticism...

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#252

Post by Terr_ » Thu, Jul 03, 2025, 1:45 AM UTC

ActorNightly wrote: post #249

danans wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your metric is "more/better jobs", then yes tariffs are a failure. But in a roundabout sense ... yes they are working. At least if the goal is to discipline and squeeze labor, and return leverage to employers. Part of the goal of the tariffs (and other non-tariff related policies) seems to be to reset leverage at all layers of the labor markets, pushing higher skilled and paid workers into lower skilled and paid m…

>At least if the goal is to discipline and squeeze labor, and return leverage to employers. The goal originally was for Trump to become the center of attention worldwide. This is pretty much the only reason tarrifs are in place.

Also a tool for extortion, much like how Trump was impeached for extorting Ukraine by withholding congressionally-mandated aid funds.

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#253

Post by danans » Thu, Jul 03, 2025, 1:47 AM UTC

ajmurmann wrote: post #166

shafyy wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even better one: real wages, and income and wealth inequality.

Why does wealth inequality matter? If my real wealth doubles and Elon's real wealth doubles, inequality went up, yet everyone is tremendously better off. I think we are using inequality as a very bad proxy for poverty but we have much better metrics for that. I suspect people just dislike it for emotional reasons. I want to point out that Sweden has more billionaires per capita than the US. Yet everyone is fine with…

> If my real wealth doubles and Elon's real wealth doubles, inequality went up, yet everyone is tremendously better off.

What's this universe that only contains you and Elon? Or do you think that everyone's real wealth has doubled?

> I can set an argument about political influence that's gotten really strong lately but maybe that's better addressed by strengthening the politically system

Citizens United has practically dismissed that possibility in the near term.

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#254

Post by s1artibartfast » Thu, Jul 03, 2025, 1:48 AM UTC

slashdev wrote: post #234

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for those who wonder "why revise downward if it's a lie?", because the numbers eventually are going to collide with reality so they need to be right sized after the fact No, this is not the reason. The numbers that get fanfare are the preliminary BLS numbers. BLS collects data through surveys. Preliminary data are published with incomplete responses. As more employers respond, the numbers get updated. Guess which e…

The numbers have been so consistently wrong in the same direction. It could be that there are other things going on, but simply that volatile numbers come in later doesn’t seem to explain the bias.

Yes it does. It firms are consistently firing , the preliminary data will always be better and then revised down.

Preliminary reports always underplay the direction of the change

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#255

Post by bix6 » Thu, Jul 03, 2025, 1:52 AM UTC

So rate cut incoming? :p

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#256

Post by issafram » Thu, Jul 03, 2025, 2:36 AM UTC

I used to have multiple recruiters reach out to me daily on LinkedIn regarding software engineering positions.

And this was for multiple years.

That hasn't been the case for the last 3 or 4 months.

None of this surprises me and it shouldn't for others.

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#257

Post by gruez » Thu, Jul 03, 2025, 2:38 AM UTC

MangoToupe wrote: post #96

mywittyname wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could lose my six-figure job, turn around, and get hired on as a server at Applebee's for minimum wage, and the "unemployment" rate would stay the same. Not to mention that it doesn't include those not actively looking for work. This is captured as part of the "U-6" figure for unemployment. The thing is, at a large scale, these events don't matter. They are rare enough to be noise in the grand scheme of things. T…

The harm is when people take the metric as literally "what percentage of people who want to be employed can find a job", which U-3 emphatically does not represent.

By that logic should we also further broaden "unemployment" to mean "100% - employment rate"? That's a pretty common misconception as well, maybe even more common than the one you listed.

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#258

Post by gruez » Thu, Jul 03, 2025, 2:41 AM UTC

shusaku wrote: post #228

twoodfin wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That real weekly wage data is basically why Trump almost and then did get reelected in one chart.

The more I look at that chart the stranger it gets. It feels like a good case for concluding CPI isn’t calculated properly

If you're talking about the spike in Q1 2020, there's nothing weird going on. That's from all the service workers getting laid off, which bumps up the average because they're typically lower paid, and no longer drag down the "employed" average.

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#259

Post by tootie » Thu, Jul 03, 2025, 2:48 AM UTC

ajmurmann wrote: post #12

psunavy03 wrote: post #6

We really need better ways of measuring economic health. I could lose my six-figure job, turn around, and get hired on as a server at Applebee's for minimum wage, and the "unemployment" rate would stay the same. Not to mention that it doesn't include those not actively looking for work. Either way, "full employment" doesn't mean much unless you take into account whether people are actually able to live a stable lifes…

We have good metrics. The problem is the media seems to only ever look at one of them at a time but we need to look at several at once to get a more complete picture. Your scenario would be called out by median household income, or better median disposable household income. Even the good old GDP per capita covers your case. Workforce participation also can be valuable instead of or in addition to unemployment numbers…

Media covers plenty. We call it "headline unemployment" because it fits in a headline. If you read articles and analysis there's plenty of places in the MSM that get into nitty gritty.

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#260

Post by ghushn3 » Thu, Jul 03, 2025, 2:51 AM UTC

danans wrote: post #245

ghushn3 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... because that influx of people will increase labor supply, lowering unions' bargaining ability. Unions primary leverage is their ability to withhold labor (AKA a strike). Plenty of big unions out there, and plenty of places where growing base actually strengthens the union, since they can afford to do more for members in the event of a strike. People will back their union if their union is fighting for them. > I…

> Plenty of big unions out there, and plenty of places where growing base actually strengthens the union, since they can afford to do more for members in the event of a strike. Union membership is strictly bound by the number of jobs. Unions, especially in the private sector, cannot directly control the number of jobs. At best they can negotiate the percentage of union jobs at a facility or site. An influx of non-uni…

> Union membership is strictly bound by the number of jobs.

Good news, the number of jobs is not strictly bound.

> Adding to that, in the US at least, the labor protections functions of the Federal government are being systematically undermined.

Yeah, that, at least, we can agree on.