>> If the government-approved numbers are this bad the real ones must be catastrophic.
Sadly my first thought was not to trust this report. The article even notes further down:
>> The US central bank would typically respond to a weakening labour market by cutting borrowing costs, in hopes of giving the economy a boost.
Our fearless leader has put enormous pressure on the Fed to lower interest rates from day 1. They keep refusing, and following the data so it makes sense (if you don't care about reality) to alter the data to get the desired result.
Please keep in mind two things with the NFP report:
1/ the confidence interval for the monthly change in total nonfarm
employment from the establishment survey is on the order of plus or minus 122,000
2/ the report is based upon a survey of establishments. There is no obligation to respond and many do not and ability/desire to respond may be impacted by company health as well.
hey I know lets spend billon per day on war of choice for no reason for rest of year and make gas $5/gallon so even people who don't drive have to pay more for trucks going to stores and delivery
oh and make old/ill people somehow work until they are sixty-five to get any food or medical assistance
Honestly, no. The administration is not subtle with its lies. If they want to fib, they do it out of POTUS's mouth at a podium, and it's a huge whopper that just dares the nasty liberal media to try to call it out. The strategy works for them, and they apply it repeatedly.
They don't just fudge numbers a bit. This is a bad number for them because it's probably the correct (or best available, really) number produced by the existing bureaucracy that does things via the same rules it always has. Doesn't mean it won't be revised later (note that there's also a big downward revision in this report of previous numbers). But it's likely trustworthy.
Along with Big Lie polemics, you also need to recognize that the administration is very sensitive to market motion (sort of a variant kind of democracy, I guess). And markets HATE when the government messes with the economic regulatory aparatus.
They quite publicly fired an official related to reporting these numbers, and they also decided not to publish numbers during the government shutdown nor backfill them. I have zero trust the administration isn’t fudging things.
Said official herself (Erika McEntarfer) has said that you should continue to trust the numbers, “You should still trust BLS data. The agency is being run by the same dedicated career staff who were running it while I was awaiting confirmation from the Senate. And the staff have made it clear that they are blowing a loud whistle if there is interference”[1]
They absolutely fudge the numbers. Summary below, but in short every possible mechanism for keeping economic reporting numbers honest is being systematically dismantled.
Don't kid yourself. You're missing the part where the heads of departments who deliver bad or embarrassing news get publicly vilified and/or fired.
That's direct pressure now to fudge/push the numbers before they come out. At the department level, there is usually a long culture of objective process to overcome, so it will probably start off subtle/small, but once they clear the old guard away they will report anything they want.
> the administration is very sensitive to market motion
Not exactly. The administration (Trump) is sensitive to embarrassment and criticism from his own side. Tanking markets are such an embarrassment, and while he might back down when markets tank, he might also do the the other thing he does to deflect embarrassment and criticism, which is to perpetrate some new outrage so that everyone complains about the new thing instead of the old thing.
And, of course, the markets will adjust. Iffy government numbers will get priced in.
You might like to believe there's a rational actor there, but there isn't. It's a guy moving from one gut reaction to the next, where his gut reaction is often to push everyone's buttons.
I'm just saying that subtle trickery isn't his M.O. And they're not any good at it, anyway.
Just watch, he'll address with with Big Lie politics like he always does. He'll stand up on a podium, throw his own Labor Department under the bus, and announce that they're lying and that the economy actually gained 200k jobs or whatever. But he won't dither on whether it's -92k or -112k.
I can't find it now because Bluesky's search function is so dreadful, but after the January jobs report was better than expected, a bunch of people were assuming the BLS must have fudged the numbers. Then the person who was actually fired from the BLS by Trump actually showed up and posted saying that, as far as they can tell from talking to "surviving" colleagues, the blowback after that firing was so intense that there hasn't been further pressure on the BLS and that as far as they can tell, the numbers are still good.
If someone can find this post, please link it here, because this person was no fan of Trump and I considered it a matter of considerable personal integrity that they looked into the matter and determined they still stood by the numbers, instead of taking the easy win on Bluesky and denouncing them.
(There is a separate issue where for the last 2-3 years, the BLS's later revisions to jobs numbers have been almost entirely downward, instead of evenly distributed like they used to be, indicating some kind of systemic methodological issue, maybe some secular change in how labor markets work post-covid. The February numbers could mean maybe they've fixed the problem, or maybe they haven't and this will later get revised to something even worse. But that issue predates Trump.)
>There is a separate issue where for the last 2-3 years, the BLS's later revisions to jobs numbers have been almost entirely downward, instead of evenly distributed like they used to be, indicating some kind of systemic methodological issue, maybe some secular change in how labor markets work post-covid
The Biden administration pulled out all the stops (without resorting to outright corruption, like Trump) to get ahead of the fact that we briefly entered a recession in 2022 (which would not have been as brief if it had been correctly identified as the recession that it was). They changed how they calculated inflation around this time, which coincided with headline staying below 10% even though it had been trending higher and likely was much, much higher for parts of the country. I have no issue with the notion that they also changed the way that they calculated job growth and then, surprise, numbers are good (but then get revised down later when no one cares anymore).
I actually do pay reasonably close attention to how inflation and unemployment are calculated, and read the BLS and Federal Reserve reports beyond just the headlines from mass media outlets, and I can say this confidently: nothing you just said is true, you made up that whole paragraph out of nothing. It reads like a copypasta from RW Twitter reply guys.
...Headline inflation, as opposed to core inflation. Not literal headlines. "Close attention," indeed.
Reading the reports "beyond just the headlines" implies that you're still just taking them at face value, when the problem is that the methodology was likely compromised by a desire not to see bad numbers roll out. Nonsensical susbtitutions in the CPI basket, which just happened to understate the price hikes most Americans saw c. 2022. Suspicious timing of changes in the efficacy of initial jobs reports when compared to later revisions, as you yourself brought up, in part because the Biden admin failed to better fund BLS surveys and better incentivize responses. Stuff like that.
So while I appreciate that you would like to dismiss, out-of-hand, the concerns about the Biden admin's economic reporting, it's not so easy. They're real and this lacto-ovo progressive is not the only one bringing them up.
In all seriousness, I’m unsure that official job numbers (even if they weren’t intentionally distorted, which is a big if these days) have caught up with the gig/creator economy. If a person making ends meet with food delivery and a few dollars of ad revenue is classified as “self-employed,” is that the same level of stability and ability to keep up with cost-of-living increases (which may outpace traditional inflation) vs. self-employed freelancers with clients? Which isn’t to cast shade on those paths, but it’s meaningful to the metrics we choose to follow.
Yes, they have. The BLS actually tracks a number of different "unemployment" numbers, whose definition you see here [0].
The "official" unemployment number, the one now reported as 4.4%, basically only counts the "percent of people actively looking for work that can't find it, who have been looking for work for more that 15 weeks.
The number you are trying to capture is what the BLS calls "U-6". That number is defined as:
> total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.
In other words, anyone that would like more work but can't get it. I encourage you to read the entire definition and footnotes at the link I shared. It's very interesting!
Right now U-6 is at 8%. During the 2007 recession it peaked at about 17%. [1]
Thanks for bringing this up, and you're right that this is closer. I still think it's imperfect, because a gig economy worker who works 35+ hours per week would be considered "employed full time" (footnotes, https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat36.htm) and as far as I know would not be included in the U-6.
