11–20 of 354 posts
> The president wants his own people there so that, when we see the numbers, they’re more transparent and more reliable He wants people there to be his version of Minitrue, providing the numbers he wants to see, not the real ones: Reporting unworkers doubleplusun-good, rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling.
Alternatively, he wants someone at the top who will create an organization that does not have to repeatedly restate massively incorrect numbers.
"people earning roughly less than $806 a week — slowed to an annual rate of 3.7 per cent in June, down from a peak of 7.5 per cent in late 2022" With inflation dropping from 9.1% in June 2022 to 2.7% in June 2025, real wages for these low earners are now growing for the first time in years. The Financial Times failure to mention this context makes me question their motives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alternatively, he wants someone at the top who will create an organization that does not have to repeatedly restate massively incorrect numbers.
The numbers get better as they get more data.
"people earning roughly less than $806 a week — slowed to an annual rate of 3.7 per cent in June, down from a peak of 7.5 per cent in late 2022" With inflation dropping from 9.1% in June 2022 to 2.7% in June 2025, real wages for these low earners are now growing for the first time in years. The Financial Times failure to mention this context makes me question their motives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The numbers get better as they get more data.
Why not wait to release them until enough data has come in that it's settled? Serious question, what's the downside?
There is just no advantage to being poor in America.
> The president wants his own people there so that, when we see the numbers, they’re more transparent and more reliable He wants people there to be his version of Minitrue, providing the numbers he wants to see, not the real ones: Reporting unworkers doubleplusun-good, rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling.
Alternatively, he wants someone at the top who will create an organization that does not have to repeatedly restate massively incorrect numbers.
So if you want early data it will inherently be of limited accuracy because that involves a lot of extrapolation with whatever incomplete data has been collected by that time. If you want accurate data you will have to wait for it because that data takes longer to be collected. You do want both because you need to make timely decisions, since most times the early numbers don't get revised by much, but you also want to course-correct when later, better data gives a different signal.
Agencies like the BLS publish their methodologies in great detail. Big revisions have always been happening, only they are getting more attention these days because of the heavy politicization.
"people earning roughly less than $806 a week — slowed to an annual rate of 3.7 per cent in June, down from a peak of 7.5 per cent in late 2022" With inflation dropping from 9.1% in June 2022 to 2.7% in June 2025, real wages for these low earners are now growing for the first time in years. The Financial Times failure to mention this context makes me question their motives.
They do talk about inflation in the article.
> The president wants his own people there so that, when we see the numbers, they’re more transparent and more reliable He wants people there to be his version of Minitrue, providing the numbers he wants to see, not the real ones: Reporting unworkers doubleplusun-good, rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling.
Alternatively, he wants someone at the top who will create an organization that does not have to repeatedly restate massively incorrect numbers.
Here, take a look for yourself: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm#2024
If this is an understood part of the process, why is it such a problem now?
Name some organizations that have "fire employees until we get success". Does that create a culture that prizes success, or just encourage employees to hide failure?