Trump fires commissioner of labor statistics to be fired after weak jobs figures

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the right move. Market show their approval today. Stock market way up!

That's great news if you're an investor/stockholder because companies are shedding jobs to reduce costs and buying back outstanding stock. That's awful news if you are a terminated employee of these companies or a nearby small business who rely on the spending from these terminated employees. The old adage is that wall street is not main street. Main street feels the pain before wall street. By the time wall street is in a bear market, main street is on life support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The WSJ editorial board weighs in:

“…the BLS job revisions are best explained by a decline in business response rates, not political bias. The reality of slowing job growth is clear to anyone paying attention, no matter the official statistics. Mr. Trump’s data denial is one more reason fewer Americans will trust the government.”

This is true - rare from the WSJ editorial board. Survey response rates have plummeted since Covid.

A 40% response rate should be more than sufficient, unless the decline is due to some other bias. All sorts of government projections have become much worse since COVID, so the citation of that decline, without more, is just silly anti-Trump nonsense from the Never-Trumpers as the WSJ.

Imagine being a college graduate and thinking that change in response rate alone is persuasive. I know you don't need to be numerate to get a college degree, but really, that's just sad.

Why should it be sufficient? Can you provide us your insight on how the model works?

Your school should have taught you about sample sizes and confidence intervals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The WSJ editorial board weighs in:

“…the BLS job revisions are best explained by a decline in business response rates, not political bias. The reality of slowing job growth is clear to anyone paying attention, no matter the official statistics. Mr. Trump’s data denial is one more reason fewer Americans will trust the government.”

This is true - rare from the WSJ editorial board. Survey response rates have plummeted since Covid.

A 40% response rate should be more than sufficient, unless the decline is due to some other bias. All sorts of government projections have become much worse since COVID, so the citation of that decline, without more, is just silly anti-Trump nonsense from the Never-Trumpers as the WSJ.

Imagine being a college graduate and thinking that change in response rate alone is persuasive. I know you don't need to be numerate to get a college degree, but really, that's just sad.

What's your background and experience in this field

LMAO that you think it requires expertise to understand statistical sampling. It's not rocket science.

Look, I have completed a few graduate-level econometrics courses, but that stuff goes way beyond what we're discussing here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The WSJ editorial board weighs in:

“…the BLS job revisions are best explained by a decline in business response rates, not political bias. The reality of slowing job growth is clear to anyone paying attention, no matter the official statistics. Mr. Trump’s data denial is one more reason fewer Americans will trust the government.”

This is true - rare from the WSJ editorial board. Survey response rates have plummeted since Covid.

A 40% response rate should be more than sufficient, unless the decline is due to some other bias. All sorts of government projections have become much worse since COVID, so the citation of that decline, without more, is just silly anti-Trump nonsense from the Never-Trumpers as the WSJ.

Imagine being a college graduate and thinking that change in response rate alone is persuasive. I know you don't need to be numerate to get a college degree, but really, that's just sad.

Why should it be sufficient? Can you provide us your insight on how the model works?

Your school should have taught you about sample sizes and confidence intervals.

So per usual, you're just talking out of your ass. You don't know the first thing about how this labor model is actually designed.

[Anonymous]

PP, what makes you or anyone think that non-response in surveys is random? Certain types of businesses are disproportionately unlikely to respond, and in order to get a representative estimate of overall payrolls, you have to have a model for the characteristics of non-respondents.

The lower the response rate, the harder it is to build and maintain that model, which means that preliminary estimates are noisier (above and beyond the mechanical effect of smaller sample sizes).

Eventually, payrolls get benchmarked to administrative records, which have far fewer issues with non-response, but take months to obtain and compile. Lower response rates mean that those benchmark revisions are larger as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, what makes you or anyone think that non-response in surveys is random? Certain types of businesses are disproportionately unlikely to respond, and in order to get a representative estimate of overall payrolls, you have to have a model for the characteristics of non-respondents.

The lower the response rate, the harder it is to build and maintain that model, which means that preliminary estimates are noisier (above and beyond the mechanical effect of smaller sample sizes).

Eventually, payrolls get benchmarked to administrative records, which have far fewer issues with non-response, but take months to obtain and compile. Lower response rates mean that those benchmark revisions are larger as well.

Shouldn't they refrain from reporting statistics they aren't confident in?

[Anonymous]

I can’t with the stupid on this thread. The American education system is failing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The WSJ editorial board weighs in:

“…the BLS job revisions are best explained by a decline in business response rates, not political bias. The reality of slowing job growth is clear to anyone paying attention, no matter the official statistics. Mr. Trump’s data denial is one more reason fewer Americans will trust the government.”

This is true - rare from the WSJ editorial board. Survey response rates have plummeted since Covid.

The WSJ has been sounding the alarm against the felon’s economic plans for months.

Anyone who says rn “the stock market is up right now, so all is fine fine” is delusional.

We’ve never seen market manipulation like this. The market will eventually catch up with manufactured data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have already passed the point of no return. It will be sometime after my life that the US may have a reliable government and government data again, but it won't be while I am still walking this earth.

Sad.

Agree. But there is hope. Germany recovered fairly quickly from Hitler who was in absolute power from 1933 to 1945. That's 12 years. Trump has only had "absolute power" since Jan. 20, 2025. He is out of office in Jan. '29 and there are a few GOP members of the House and Senate are finally showing some guts!
The Epstein scandal is not going away and is his doom.

I mean, if you want to be optimistic that Trump or his successor leaves office in January 2029, go for it. With an expanded ICE and US military on the streets of our cities, I don't share that optimism.

[Anonymous]

Lotta the numbahs were phony,
Totally phony.
We need the real numbahs,
We need the good ones.

It's time for the good ones,
And that's what we're going to have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t with the stupid on this thread. The American education system is failing.

Nope.

It already failed. Adults today were failed by educators 15-30 years ago.

[Anonymous]

“The credibility of the BLS depends on independence and analytical rigor. Leadership Now calls upon Congress to ensure this Administration upholds these. We urge fellow business associations and leaders to join us.”

https://www.leadershipnowproject.org/lnp-insights/2025/8/4/statement-on-president-trumps-firing-of-the-commissioner-of-the-bureau-of-labor-statistics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The WSJ editorial board weighs in:

“…the BLS job revisions are best explained by a decline in business response rates, not political bias. The reality of slowing job growth is clear to anyone paying attention, no matter the official statistics. Mr. Trump’s data denial is one more reason fewer Americans will trust the government.”

This is true - rare from the WSJ editorial board. Survey response rates have plummeted since Covid.

The WSJ has been sounding the alarm against the felon’s economic plans for months.

Anyone who says rn “the stock market is up right now, so all is fine fine” is delusional.

We’ve never seen market manipulation like this. The market will eventually catch up with manufactured data.

The WSJ was not happy about the firing of this employee.

[Anonymous]

Hopefully Trump will just shut down Bureau of Labor Statistics. The White House press secretary could announce whatever number Trump wants and save 644 million a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The WSJ editorial board weighs in:

“…the BLS job revisions are best explained by a decline in business response rates, not political bias. The reality of slowing job growth is clear to anyone paying attention, no matter the official statistics. Mr. Trump’s data denial is one more reason fewer Americans will trust the government.”

This is true - rare from the WSJ editorial board. Survey response rates have plummeted since Covid.

A 40% response rate should be more than sufficient, unless the decline is due to some other bias. All sorts of government projections have become much worse since COVID, so the citation of that decline, without more, is just silly anti-Trump nonsense from the Never-Trumpers as the WSJ.

Imagine being a college graduate and thinking that change in response rate alone is persuasive. I know you don't need to be numerate to get a college degree, but really, that's just sad.

Well as a business you do not want to report bad numbers to the government. Trump will go after you and your business. It is amazing that the WSJ can not figure that out.