I do find it encouraging that there’s not a lot of pro-Trump sentiment on HN these days. Unlike, say, in October/November 2024…
U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier
491–500 of 514 posts
Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier
#492I do find it encouraging that there’s not a lot of pro-Trump sentiment on HN these days. Unlike, say, in October/November 2024…
People have short memories, they'll come out of the woodwork in 2028 claiming the dems are taking away their freedoms.
Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier
#493Earlier 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.
...according to two U.S. based professors and editors at the Economist.
I dont recall too many foreign leaders stating that they envied the American economy.
Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier
#494The revisions cover March 2024 through March 2025. While his policies may deliver turmoil in the near future, I don’t understand why most of the discussion here is about Trump. Furthermore, these revisions are at the high end of estimates, so it’s not a complete shock. The Fed and financial institutions must have already had an idea that the job market could be this bad.
Probably because Trump is currently in power and proudly touting his economic polices as improving things when they are very clearly not.
Not agreeing or disagreeing... but what metrics are you using to determine whether things are "improving" or not?
Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier
#495Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are numbers compiled by this administration about a period immediately before Trump imposed some very very very economically stupid tariffs. It's quite suspicious to have such a big drop timed precisely as if to serve as a handy baseline to minimize the perceived impact of that idiocy; it comes out of an agency (BLS) whose previous head was fired for the sin of a displeasing report and was replaced with a commi…
Except the BLS numbers have been significantly revised on an ongoing basis for the last five years. That's been so widely known that I have a really hard time believing that you guys don't know this, which makes me wonder why you're out here propagandizing like this. You need to understand it's a net loss in persuasion, this gaslighting.
You’re attempting to argue that “revisions exist” is somehow strong evidence for the proposition that “no aspect of particular revision X was politically motivated”.
That is gaslighting.
Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier
#496Thanks armchair accelerationist voters
Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier
#497Earlier quoted context omitted.
Explain to me please why job numbers aren’t simply a matter of querying the Federal social security database? A longstanding process of polling businesses for what they want to report, followed by corrections up to one year later, has got to be a pantomime to fudge the numbers.
They survey businesses because the Social Security database has too much lag and does not contain enough detail. The lag is because it is based on employer submissions that are quarterly or annual.
And yet, SS contributions are done every pay period.
Who has that data then? Treasury?
Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier
#498Earlier 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...
[dead]
Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier
#499Earlier 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.
Seems like Trump is doing just fine creating a recession on his own.
[dead]
Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier
#500Earlier quoted context omitted.
> last year's revisions To be clear, these are this administration's revisions, about what happened in the previous administration. They also don't have much credibility. One problem with firing the economist running the BLS for reporting numbers the administration didn't like, and replacing her with a political loyalist is that no one will take the numbers the BLS reports seriously anymore.
" ... no one will take the numbers the BLS reports seriously anymore." Pretty sure the last five years of significant consistent downward revision did that.
The revision process is a normal part of reporting employment numbers. Since real-time actual numbers aren't feasible, they use approximate and correlated indicators initially and later revise when more solid data arrives.
I can't tell what your point is though. It almost sounds like you're trying to say the initial BLS numbers have been politically manipulated for years since revisions have been consistently down for a while? Surely not, though, because that doesn't make any sense -- continuously applying an upward boost on initial numbers, only to have them consistently revised downward, for several years, would simply cause the system to adjust to the new norm. The absolute numbers have never been important; it's the relative numbers that count, so a consistently applied manipulation effectively becomes no manipulation over time.
Anyway, there's a lack of proof of manipulation. Well, until recently, when the political manipulation was made publicly.
OTOH, I suppose simple facts and logic aren't important in our post-fact world though.