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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:I can’t with the stupid on this thread. The American education system is failing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
Anonymous wrote:Looks like the right move. Market show their approval today. Stock market way up!