Logos Stick said:

---

I don't think I'm buying it. I looked back at the last 8 years.

In the 2 years prior to the pandemic, the revisions were +0.04% and -0.03%. No biggie.

The last two years, the revisions were -0.4% and -0.6%, two of the three largest revisions in history and both overestimates. They were even larger than the revisions during and coming out of COVID.


eta: looking back the previous decade before Trump and the revisions are small, in line with Trump's first two years.

---

May be simply the incompetence of this chick that just got fired.

YouBet said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

I don't think I'm buying it. I looked back at the last 8 years.

In the 2 years prior to the pandemic, the revisions were +0.04% and -0.03%. No biggie.

The last two years, the revisions were -0.4% and -0.6%, two of the three largest revisions in history and both overestimates. They were even larger than the revisions during and coming out of COVID.


eta: looking back the previous decade before Trump and the revisions are small, in line with Trump's first two years.

---

May be simply the incompetence of this chick that just got fired.

---

I guess we will see. The lower participation rates don't fully explain a 10x step increase the last 2 years, imo.

HTownAg98 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

That is a really, really crappy job of estimating. Whoever is in charge of calculating the estimate should be fired, and her work be audited by competent professionals.

---

The data was much more reliable when private companies were filling out the surveys. We didn't see adjustments like this until the survey participation fell through the floor. It's more of a case of garbage in, garbage out.

---

So, are you saying that there is no person alive that would have been better at estimating?

I mean, even TexAgs new the numbers were inflated.

The high reported estimates were just another conspiracy that was called a conspiracy theory until the receipts were found.

---

Given the data they have to work with, probably not. There's only so much an analyst can do with incomplete and in some cases garbage data.

---

Have you touched a computer since 1970? We are getting pretty good at filling in the gaps of incomplete data from the rest of the data available in the world. In fact, I think that A&M has a degree with a major in doing that.

There are only two types of people in this world. The type of people that can extrapolate meaning out of incomplete data.

Just shows that the fudging of the numbers was hiding a ticking timebomb for whoever the president was going to be. Hope this was not political.

And FED working off bad numbers is causing other issues with rates.

Also, Trump is now justified in his firing of the BLS head.

Maybe you should tell that to BLS then, because they could definitely use the help!

The government new job numbers include death and birth rates….which means….and this is difficult to believe….the government's new job numbers are not accurate.

It was true for Trump too, but he fired the person responsible for it.

Thanks Donny

STOP THE COUNT



How'd this thread be going if the numbers had been a revision up? It's hard to imagine really.

RoadkillBBQ said:

---

Didn't Trump fire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics last month over allegations of not reporting correct numbers? Maybe we're just getting the truth now and this is that adjustment.

---

He fired the person because the numbers posted did not make him look good. It had nothing to do with correct numbers.

There have been big misses since 2006.

Appr. 4.9M jobs have been revised to 0 in that timeframe.

The last three years accounted for 2M (app. 40% of the revision total for the last 20 years), and this years miss was the largest on record.

Failure to correct an obivous abysmal trend will get most private CEOs fired. Shouldn't be any different for a government employee.

We can decry means and methods all we want. At some point someone with some vision is going to have to step up and say hey guys, maybe its the freakin method that is broken. We don't need to spend thousands of man hours trying to band-aid a broken system. We need to change the system.

TexasAggie73 said:

---

RoadkillBBQ said:

---

Didn't Trump fire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics last month over allegations of not reporting correct numbers? Maybe we're just getting the truth now and this is that adjustment.

---

He fired the person because the numbers posted did not make him look good. It had nothing to do with correct numbers.

---

Yeah sure, her being grossly incompetent and partisan had absolutely nothing to do with it.

ETFan said:

---

STOP THE COUNT



How'd this thread be going if the numbers had been a revision up? It's hard to imagine really.

---

You are right, a revision upwards is about as hard to imagine as a Republican's lead in an election going up weeks after election day.

Putting out fake numbers should be illegal. Many people take decisions based on those numbers.

Fire the people releasing it.

Reality is we are in deep recession and no one can get jobs in America. Time to move to China or India or Philippines where all our jobs are.

infinity ag said:

---

Putting out fake numbers should be illegal. Many people take decisions based on those numbers.

Fire the people releasing it.

Reality is we are in deep recession and no one can get jobs in America. Time to move to China or India or Philippines where all our jobs are.

---

yeah but McKinsey told us to outsource and offshore all our jobs...you know, make that bottom line look good

LMCane said:

---

Sims said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

Preliminary estimate = made up number to suit whatever message the DC bureaucracy wants to send.

---

Definitely prelim but also influenced heavily by the QCEW which is an actual count of employment submitted by employers as mandated by law. The initial measures are imputed (made up) numbers based on falling participation in a voluntary survey.

I would put a LOT more stock into the revisions than I would the original numbers that are now being revised.

---

then why report crappy preliminary economic data in the first place?!?!

if it is always wrong (it is) then what is the point of publishing it to the public?!?

---

The numbers are put out to prop up or to degrade whoever is in office, depending of course if a democrat or republican.

There is no way they can accurately come up with monthly numbers. As to annual stuff, I resented having to submit economic data for me or for my clients and I just made up something. Always seemed to have more important things to do, things that I could bill for.

Seems pretty accurate to me

https://t.co/2YpZu8ynal pic.twitter.com/rMoFKHNbxH

— Carl Quintanilla (@carlquintanilla) September 9, 2025

big numbers make that graph useless

Looks like this week we are all experts on government economic statistics!

KerrAg76 said:

---

big numbers make that graph useless

---

Yeah that Y axis is purposefully VERY large. Do Dems do anything honest?

Dr. Erika McEntarfer pic.twitter.com/LkkZWEL7An

— C3 (@C_3C_3) September 10, 2025

Democrats....inflating numbers since 2020 who am I kidding, since 1786


Seriously, when can we expect a revision of the 2020 election results?

LMCane said:

---

Sims said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

Preliminary estimate = made up number to suit whatever message the DC bureaucracy wants to send.

---

Definitely prelim but also influenced heavily by the QCEW which is an actual count of employment submitted by employers as mandated by law. The initial measures are imputed (made up) numbers based on falling participation in a voluntary survey.

I would put a LOT more stock into the revisions than I would the original numbers that are now being revised.

---

then why report crappy preliminary economic data in the first place?!?!

if it is always wrong (it is) then what is the point of publishing it to the public?!?

---

$$$$
those in the loop understand completely.

HTownAg98 said:

---

The easy fix, at least temporarily, is to encourage more companies to participate in the surveys they send out. You got an idea how to do that? I have one. If you get one of these monthly surveys, and you fill it out and return it on time, you get a tax credit on your corporate tax return. At least someone is getting compensated for filling it out.

---

Any penalty for intentionally filling out incorrect?

It's not that hard, really. A good system would scale quite easily. The current system sucks and the only reason it lives on is because it has an infinite and unaccountable budget that serves large crony investors who game the system and make money no matter which direction the numbers move.

Pretty mundane processes laid out well can look Einsteinian compared to what bureaucrats conceive.

Realizing that 51% of the jobs reported during the last year of the Biden administration never actually existed…pic.twitter.com/dkf6z23KPK

— Geiger Capital (@Geiger_Capital) September 9, 2025

BigRobSA said:

---

HumpitPuryear said:

---

Were the original numbers inflated to help Biden or are the new numbers slashed to hurt Trump? Who knows. We are a banana republic doing banana republic things.

---

Or ...



......and follow along with me here......













.............govt numbers are trash. Always.

---

Dem government numbers are always trash. Truth is not a left wing value.

HTownAg98 said:

---

The easy fix, at least temporarily, is to encourage more companies to participate in the surveys they send out. You got an idea how to do that? I have one. If you get one of these monthly surveys, and you fill it out and return it on time, you get a tax credit on your corporate tax return. At least someone is getting compensated for filling it out.

---

90% of the people on here don't understand the process. Ignorance is bliss when you can just blame the government

The media is spinning this as 911,000 jobs lost under Trump.

Nobody listens to the media.

They will be falling trees in an unattended forest.

Rapier108 said:

---

The media is spinning this as 911,000 jobs lost under Trump.

---

Of course they are even though 10 of the months reported were under Biden. NBC had a segment on their nightly news that reported this and to my surprise they did report the dates but never uttered the word "Biden" in their reporting. A perfect example of how they'll report some of the facts but leave out an important piece to avoid blaming a Dem.

These revisions must STOP. I can understand a few minor corrections every now and then but this revision drama happens every time and is increasing in magnitude.

If the next guy revises, FIRE HIM/HER. No data should be put out there that authorities are not confident about.

They fired the old gal and the revisions are resulting from the new guy.

I get the overall sentiment on revisions, but we knew these were coming.

To be honest, just do away with it.

AggDawg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

The easy fix, at least temporarily, is to encourage more companies to participate in the surveys they send out. You got an idea how to do that? I have one. If you get one of these monthly surveys, and you fill it out and return it on time, you get a tax credit on your corporate tax return. At least someone is getting compensated for filling it out.

---

90% of the people on here don't understand the process. Ignorance is bliss when you can just blame the government

---

We r just simpl peepel. Thank God u r heer to sho us the weigh.

HTownAg98 said:

---

That data from private companies is required to be reported quarterly. It's not available in real time.

---

I've been on the record lots of times saying how poor the BLS utilization of the data sources available to them is.

The government is out here doing revisions 18 months after the fact to let us know employment numbers and ADP is now publishing weekly.

Weekly Jobs Report from ADP

It's a feature, not a bug.

But we just don't understand how the process works.