Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier

barrons.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 514 posts

Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier

#311

Post by CursedSilicon »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #269
Arainach wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's much easier to destroy than build, and some things once destroyed can't be rebuilt. Trump's inconsistent tariff and policy flip flopping means no one trusts the US to behave rationally and predictably. The fact that the US population elected him a second time means that the US as a whole can't be trusted to behave like rational adults. Decades or centuries of reputation has been thrown away. That can't be change…

The media and political ecosystem that gave us an early dementia patient on one hand and trump on the other also bears blame.

"early dementia patient"

No, that's the guy that got elected. The one very smart at nuclear

Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier

#313

Post by burnte »

minorj47 wrote: post #165

I am honestly surprised considering everything we have seen regarding the reporting of the jobs report that people are taking this on face value. I think it’s more likely the numbers are being deflated to give the current administration an excuse for the recent downturn in hiring that their policies have caused.

The current admin would never voluntarily release bad news even as an excuse. They'd just lie about the reality.

Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier

#314

Post by jshen »

nullocator wrote: post #287
jshen wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe it's entirely the result of bad policies, but you also left if vague. Which bad policies are entirely causing this in your opinion?

Firing thousands of skilled and qualified federal employees, gutting research grants and funding, spitting in our allies faces.

Those are bad things. It doesn't mean there aren't other contributors to our economic challenges.

Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier

#315

Post by jshen »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #236
jshen wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe it's entirely the result of bad policies, but you also left if vague. Which bad policies are entirely causing this in your opinion?

For starters we have cancelling and ripping up clean energy projects, introducing serious uncertainty about tarrifs, increasing unease for any immigrant (and even non-white citizens).

Those are bad things. It doesn't mean there aren't other contributors to our economic challenges.

Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier

#316

Post by sc68cal »

thisisit wrote: post #148
cs702 wrote: post #53

If unemployment continues to rise, and the one-time impact on prices of tariffs leads to self-reinforcing high inflation, we'll have stagflation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation I sure hope not , because stagflation would be extremely unpleasant for everyone. Central banks like the Federal Reserve would be forced to raise interest rates, to put stress on businesses and consumers, so businesses find themsel…

Today's economy is all about politics. There are people who still hold out hope or confuse economic data with economist. Populism >>>> good policy. No one wants to be the next Volcker. So, this is likely going to stagflation. I hope I am wrong because this can be ripple effects all over the world.

> Today's economy is all about politics.

When has it not been? It's how we actually determine the allocation of resources

Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier

#317

Post by lucius_verus »

cs702 wrote: post #53

If unemployment continues to rise, and the one-time impact on prices of tariffs leads to self-reinforcing high inflation, we'll have stagflation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation I sure hope not , because stagflation would be extremely unpleasant for everyone. Central banks like the Federal Reserve would be forced to raise interest rates, to put stress on businesses and consumers, so businesses find themsel…

Strictly speaking, Volcker caused two recessions (the first of which likely ended Carter's re-election prospects).

Although raising interest rates tamped down inflation on the demand side, we don't give enough credit to Carter for attacking the supply side by deregulating energy markets.

Carter typically doesn't get credit because prices didn't really ease until he was out of office. However, it looks like energy prices wouldn't have decreased if Carter hadn't deregulated the oil and gas industry, which allowed domestic producers to become competitive. (Ironically, Carter thought deregulation would raise prices and foster a move to alternative energy. Instead we got shale oil and fracking. Unintended consequences.)

Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier

#318

Post by dragontamer »

logifail wrote: post #275
wredcoll wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you reporting on this breaking news scandal that predictions about future events are not always perfectly accurate?

> Are you reporting on this breaking news scandal that predictions about future events are not always perfectly accurate? If the predictions are always (or mostly) wrong but always in one direction then wouldn't one begin to suspect that either a) the model is flawed, or b) that there's goal-seeking behind the scenes? If there's a recent revision of BLS figures showing a correction of PLUS 900k jobs, I'd love to see…

> If there's a recent revision of BLS figures showing a correction of PLUS 900k jobs, I'd love to see it.

I know right? It's like the new numbers from the BLS are shit or something.

Trump fires the last guy, and then a month later they claim that Joe Biden lost 900,000++ jobs. A correction of this size that has never happened before.

It's like firing the head of statistics ruins your reputation and intimidates the other accountants into making up numbers that favor your politics.

Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier

#319

Post by bpodgursky »

burnte wrote: post #313
minorj47 wrote: post #165

I am honestly surprised considering everything we have seen regarding the reporting of the jobs report that people are taking this on face value. I think it’s more likely the numbers are being deflated to give the current administration an excuse for the recent downturn in hiring that their policies have caused.

The current admin would never voluntarily release bad news even as an excuse. They'd just lie about the reality.

This would mean bad news about job growth mostly during Biden's tenure, not Trump's.

Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier

#320

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

spicyusername wrote: post #285
penguin202 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last administration cooked the books on BLS numbers for nearly 2 years, issuing corrections and all that nobody paid attention to. They also redefined what a recession is during the last administration. Wasn't a news story then, but is now b/c trump.

Trump is incompetent at best (a crony at worst), a bull in the legislative China shop, and revels in drawing attention to himself... so it shouldn't be too surprising people are on high alert during his tenure and news headlines get more attention. Last administration cooked the books on BLS numbers for nearly 2 years I'm going to need to see a citation for such a claim...

Not the GP, but here is an analysis of the BLS data arguing the opposite[0]. Short answer, BLS data gets revised all the time and the supposedly smoking gun revision that was used to justify firing the BLS head was not even in the top 50 most extreme corrections.

https://www.natesilver.net/p/trumps-jobs-data-denialism-wont...

Post reply on HN