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

451–460 of 514 posts

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

#451

Post by seanmcdirmid »

logifail wrote: post #358
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, the BLS budget has been cut (DOGEd) and they have been warning for months now that this is impacting their ability to follow up on surveys.

> the BLS budget has been cut (DOGEd) and they have been warning for months now that this is impacting their ability to follow up on surveys This was broken long before DOGE was a thing: https://seekingalpha.com/news/4142722-why-was-there-such-a-b ... "There's still ongoing chatter about the huge revision to U.S. job growth seen yesterday and what it might signify for the economy and markets. 818,000 jobs were wiped…

DOGE broke it even more. The error bars have always been non-zero. Now the error bars will be even larger than before (unless Trump just outlaws error bars).

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

#453

Post by SantalBlush »

RC_ITR wrote: post #50

I think it's interesting that everyone's immediate reaction now-a-days is to assume incompetence or maliciousness, rather than curiosity at the root cause (very telling this attitude has even permeated a forum for supposed 'hackers'). A high-level is that 80% of the economy is very easy to track b/c it's not very volatile (teachers, for example). What we have seen is a huge surge in unpredictability in the most volat…

A lot of people don't understand that collecting data is actually expensive and difficult when it doesn't involve surreptitiously stealing it via some piece of tech.

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

#454

Post by cs702 »

zahlman wrote: post #206
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…

Unemployment was continuously higher than the current level from approximately early 1970 to mid 1999: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1M4lw (click "Max") Markets currently don't expect significantly higher inflation in the long term, as the "10 year breakeven inflation rate" ("The latest value implies what market participants expect inflation to be in the next 10 years, on average.") is fairly stable: https://f…

I hope you're right.

To the extent I come across as doubtful and concerned, it is only due to recent firsthand experiences buying food, clothes, and electronics. My perception is that prices are still rising in many product categories. Anecdotal evidence is not data, so I can't and won't make a prediction, but I think it's fair for me to express doubt and concern.

All I know for certain is that we'll find out as more data becomes available.

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

#455

Post by matthewdgreen »

chasd00 wrote: post #403
mensetmanusman wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That excuse works one time. After that, you fix incentives and hire competent data gatherers.

I agree, if you can't publish a number that's pretty accurate then you shouldn't publish anything. That's why i wasn't broken hearted when Trump fired that BLS person. If you can't even get close then someone needs to be found that can or at least has the balls to say "idk what the number is, we're not publishing without good data".

Talk to Congress about this. Publishing this monthly data is a legal mandate, it's not up to the BLS head, and firing the BLS head doesn't fix it.

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

#456

Post by junar »

lokar wrote: post #38
lotsofpulp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the IRS has near real time employment data simply based on tax withholding payments they receive every 2 to 4 weeks.

That comes out quarterly

Yes, and to add, it would count anyone who had any wages in that quarter, not necessarily those who are still employed.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f941.pdf

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

#457

Post by mountainriver »

scrollop wrote: post #270
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.

Until the end of 2024 the US had an economy the world envied. At least, this allows Europe to rise, again.

Because of debt spending, everyone wants to act like we did something amazing. We didn’t, we just pumped in more debt and the economy went up. We are now even more in the red as a nation

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

#458

Post by ctchocula »

VoidWarranty wrote: post #110
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…

So uh, I'm the first person in my family to break the cycle of poverty. I have nobody I trust to follow advise with money. I do all the 'standard' boring investment strategies (401, index funds, roth, etc). I don't bother with crypto (scams). What does one do if stagflation is coming? Float more cash? Buy real estate?

Bogleheads [1] gives better financial advice than HN. Every time I peruse some threads there, I learn something new about personal finance I didn't know about.

[1] www.bogleheads.org/forum

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

#459

Post by cman1444 »

jshen wrote: post #377
noitpmeder wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point I think the ball is in _your_ court to start suggesting reasonable cofactors.

Debt cycles would be one. https://youtu.be/SoKr0QVCLPA?si=kKcXNetb-kAPr1S8

I don't the current economy is "entirely" the result of bad policy, but I do think it is the primary contributor. I read/listen to a lot of economic commentators as an interest of mine, and there is pretty broad agreement that tariffs are the main cause of inflation failing to tick down to target this year. There also seems to be consensus that the manufacturing sector has been harmed by tariffs and immigration policy rather than helped.

In my opinion, the AI hype cycle has temporarily buoyed the economy from more serious pain. If significant economic gains aren't realized from it soon I think we'll begin to see that pull back.

I do, however, think a return to ZIRP by the Fed would result in a significant economic boost. Psychologically, everyone remembers how advantageous low interest rates are and I think it could result in real investor/borrower optimism, temporarily, if we go back to that. Unfortunately, that would likely mainly stimulate the demand side of the economy, and not as much supply. I don't have high hopes for how that would affect inflation.

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

#460

Post by cman1444 »

scrollop wrote: post #270
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.

Until the end of 2024 the US had an economy the world envied. At least, this allows Europe to rise, again.

You are kidding yourself if you believe Europe will be an economic winner at any time in the not-distant future.
Post reply on HN