Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are fake numbers. Look around and tell me what you see. Are people really thriving? How's inflation? I personally know a lot of people silently struggling. These are upper middle class doctors, lawyers, lobbyists, and Feds.

I see restaurant and retailer parking lots more full than I ever have before.

Anonymous wrote:These are fake numbers. Look around and tell me what you see. Are people really thriving? How's inflation? I personally know a lot of people silently struggling. These are upper middle class doctors, lawyers, lobbyists, and Feds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The data is not fake. I am a Democrat so sure I could jump on it to fit a narrative, but that will disingenuous.

There is raw data available for this. The methodology has not changed.

What people forget is that under all previous administration BLS has always been the punching bag as far as agency experiencing budget cut.

The BLS is under staffed. And the methodology they use require lots of human resources. And response rates have been decreasing. This explain the wild revisions we have been seeing lately.

Read the report closely.

Let me ask you a question. If you think this is fa, do you also think that the revisions that essentially wiped out all jobs created for 2025 were also fake? There were from the same report.

This. The people here are crackpot conspiracy theorists. Monthly data gets revised after its first estimate. November and December were both revised down in this report. Annual data gets revised regularly too. The downward revision for the past year is a level change to re-anchor the series based on complete data, not a flow change like the monthly data. Basically, there were 158,377,000 people employed in March 2025 instead of the previous reported 159,275,000. The monthly revisions (reflecting actual developments in the labor market) were much less.

There is more data than just the BLS surveys. The Fed is not making decisions off of one data point.

Finally, don’t hang on to one month’s data. Data is noisy.

If the data is to be so trusted, why did Trump fire the head of BLS because he didn’t like the numbers? He was essentially claiming the numbers were cooked before that staffing change? Or he wants a new head to change them?

Because he’s stupid and impulsive and fires people who don’t do things he wants? Like, he fired Lisa Cook from the Fed but even if that had succeeded it wouldn’t have gotten him lower rates. He’s not particularly strategic, just angry and reactionary.

No, everything we've seen shows us the intimidation has been targeted to forcing BLS and others to report favorable news only.

And other than the January number, the rest of the jobs numbers in this report were unfavorable. Guess his intimidation isn’t working very well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you guys just see the latest job report?

Wow the forecast was so off. 130k jobs added vs 55k estimated.

health care led job gains in December, adding 82,000 positions. Social assistance also rose, up 42,000

The jobs added reinforced an aging population with only 1 sector namely health care being the only sector continually adding jobs.

The jobs numbers haven't been credible since Trump fired McEntarfer.

How many worker bees are responsible for compiling parts of this data? You think they would stay quiet if the numbers presented were wildly out of whack?

Let’s think this through. By not keeping quiet what does that mean? Speaking up to their bosses? That’s pointless. Speaking out to the media? And then they get fired and then harassed and god knows what. So heck yes they are keeping quiet. The ones who saw the writing on the wall have probably already left.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The data is not fake. I am a Democrat so sure I could jump on it to fit a narrative, but that will disingenuous.

There is raw data available for this. The methodology has not changed.

What people forget is that under all previous administration BLS has always been the punching bag as far as agency experiencing budget cut.

The BLS is under staffed. And the methodology they use require lots of human resources. And response rates have been decreasing. This explain the wild revisions we have been seeing lately.

Read the report closely.

Let me ask you a question. If you think this is fa, do you also think that the revisions that essentially wiped out all jobs created for 2025 were also fake? There were from the same report.

This. The people here are crackpot conspiracy theorists. Monthly data gets revised after its first estimate. November and December were both revised down in this report. Annual data gets revised regularly too. The downward revision for the past year is a level change to re-anchor the series based on complete data, not a flow change like the monthly data. Basically, there were 158,377,000 people employed in March 2025 instead of the previous reported 159,275,000. The monthly revisions (reflecting actual developments in the labor market) were much less.

There is more data than just the BLS surveys. The Fed is not making decisions off of one data point.

Finally, don’t hang on to one month’s data. Data is noisy.

If the data is to be so trusted, why did Trump fire the head of BLS because he didn’t like the numbers? He was essentially claiming the numbers were cooked before that staffing change? Or he wants a new head to change them?

Because he’s stupid and impulsive and fires people who don’t do things he wants? Like, he fired Lisa Cook from the Fed but even if that had succeeded it wouldn’t have gotten him lower rates. He’s not particularly strategic, just angry and reactionary.

No, everything we've seen shows us the intimidation has been targeted to forcing BLS and others to report favorable news only.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The data is not fake. I am a Democrat so sure I could jump on it to fit a narrative, but that will disingenuous.

There is raw data available for this. The methodology has not changed.

What people forget is that under all previous administration BLS has always been the punching bag as far as agency experiencing budget cut.

The BLS is under staffed. And the methodology they use require lots of human resources. And response rates have been decreasing. This explain the wild revisions we have been seeing lately.

Read the report closely.

Let me ask you a question. If you think this is fa, do you also think that the revisions that essentially wiped out all jobs created for 2025 were also fake? There were from the same report.

This. The people here are crackpot conspiracy theorists. Monthly data gets revised after its first estimate. November and December were both revised down in this report. Annual data gets revised regularly too. The downward revision for the past year is a level change to re-anchor the series based on complete data, not a flow change like the monthly data. Basically, there were 158,377,000 people employed in March 2025 instead of the previous reported 159,275,000. The monthly revisions (reflecting actual developments in the labor market) were much less.

There is more data than just the BLS surveys. The Fed is not making decisions off of one data point.

Finally, don’t hang on to one month’s data. Data is noisy.

If the data is to be so trusted, why did Trump fire the head of BLS because he didn’t like the numbers? He was essentially claiming the numbers were cooked before that staffing change? Or he wants a new head to change them?

Because he’s stupid and impulsive and fires people who don’t do things he wants? Like, he fired Lisa Cook from the Fed but even if that had succeeded it wouldn’t have gotten him lower rates. He’s not particularly strategic, just angry and reactionary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you guys just see the latest job report?

Wow the forecast was so off. 130k jobs added vs 55k estimated.

health care led job gains in December, adding 82,000 positions. Social assistance also rose, up 42,000

The jobs added reinforced an aging population with only 1 sector namely health care being the only sector continually adding jobs.

The jobs numbers haven't been credible since Trump fired McEntarfer.

How many worker bees are responsible for compiling parts of this data? You think they would stay quiet if the numbers presented were wildly out of whack?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The data is not fake. I am a Democrat so sure I could jump on it to fit a narrative, but that will disingenuous.

There is raw data available for this. The methodology has not changed.

What people forget is that under all previous administration BLS has always been the punching bag as far as agency experiencing budget cut.

The BLS is under staffed. And the methodology they use require lots of human resources. And response rates have been decreasing. This explain the wild revisions we have been seeing lately.

Read the report closely.

Let me ask you a question. If you think this is fa, do you also think that the revisions that essentially wiped out all jobs created for 2025 were also fake? There were from the same report.

This. The people here are crackpot conspiracy theorists. Monthly data gets revised after its first estimate. November and December were both revised down in this report. Annual data gets revised regularly too. The downward revision for the past year is a level change to re-anchor the series based on complete data, not a flow change like the monthly data. Basically, there were 158,377,000 people employed in March 2025 instead of the previous reported 159,275,000. The monthly revisions (reflecting actual developments in the labor market) were much less.

There is more data than just the BLS surveys. The Fed is not making decisions off of one data point.

Finally, don’t hang on to one month’s data. Data is noisy.

If the data is to be so trusted, why did Trump fire the head of BLS because he didn’t like the numbers? He was essentially claiming the numbers were cooked before that staffing change? Or he wants a new head to change them?

Because he’s stupid and impulsive and fires people who don’t do things he wants? Like, he fired Lisa Cook from the Fed but even if that had succeeded it wouldn’t have gotten him lower rates. He’s not particularly strategic, just angry and reactionary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you guys just see the latest job report?

Wow the forecast was so off. 130k jobs added vs 55k estimated.

health care led job gains in December, adding 82,000 positions. Social assistance also rose, up 42,000

The jobs added reinforced an aging population with only 1 sector namely health care being the only sector continually adding jobs.

The jobs numbers haven't been credible since Trump fired McEntarfer.

How many worker bees are responsible for compiling parts of this data? You think they would stay quiet if the numbers presented were wildly out of whack?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The data is not fake. I am a Democrat so sure I could jump on it to fit a narrative, but that will disingenuous.

There is raw data available for this. The methodology has not changed.

What people forget is that under all previous administration BLS has always been the punching bag as far as agency experiencing budget cut.

The BLS is under staffed. And the methodology they use require lots of human resources. And response rates have been decreasing. This explain the wild revisions we have been seeing lately.

Read the report closely.

Let me ask you a question. If you think this is fa, do you also think that the revisions that essentially wiped out all jobs created for 2025 were also fake? There were from the same report.

This. The people here are crackpot conspiracy theorists. Monthly data gets revised after its first estimate. November and December were both revised down in this report. Annual data gets revised regularly too. The downward revision for the past year is a level change to re-anchor the series based on complete data, not a flow change like the monthly data. Basically, there were 158,377,000 people employed in March 2025 instead of the previous reported 159,275,000. The monthly revisions (reflecting actual developments in the labor market) were much less.

There is more data than just the BLS surveys. The Fed is not making decisions off of one data point.

Finally, don’t hang on to one month’s data. Data is noisy.

If the data is to be so trusted, why did Trump fire the head of BLS because he didn’t like the numbers? He was essentially claiming the numbers were cooked before that staffing change? Or he wants a new head to change them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The data is not fake. I am a Democrat so sure I could jump on it to fit a narrative, but that will disingenuous.

There is raw data available for this. The methodology has not changed.

What people forget is that under all previous administration BLS has always been the punching bag as far as agency experiencing budget cut.

The BLS is under staffed. And the methodology they use require lots of human resources. And response rates have been decreasing. This explain the wild revisions we have been seeing lately.

Read the report closely.

Let me ask you a question. If you think this is fa, do you also think that the revisions that essentially wiped out all jobs created for 2025 were also fake? There were from the same report.

This. The people here are crackpot conspiracy theorists. Monthly data gets revised after its first estimate. November and December were both revised down in this report. Annual data gets revised regularly too. The downward revision for the past year is a level change to re-anchor the series based on complete data, not a flow change like the monthly data. Basically, there were 158,377,000 people employed in March 2025 instead of the previous reported 159,275,000. The monthly revisions (reflecting actual developments in the labor market) were much less.

There is more data than just the BLS surveys. The Fed is not making decisions off of one data point.

Finally, don’t hang on to one month’s data. Data is noisy.