> BLS numbers are routinely revised in retrospect to be worse a quarter or two later and with a friday release so that no one notices. See.. this is where you'

> BLS numbers are routinely revised in retrospect to be worse a quarter or two later and with a friday release so that no one notices. See.. this is where you're completely wrong. > As in, more than one in two BLS unemployment reports is retroactively revised, and I don't remember a single "it's actually better than we previously reported" revision. All BLS reports are revised -- they're surveys that are aggregated as firms respond. Their methodology is completely transparent.[1] In fact, the BLS is so transparent that they actually keep a data series that tracks revisions to their own data with monthly history back to 1979! [2] Their initial monthly jobs numbers in 2015 were overstated by an average of 4,000 jobs. However, in 2014, their initial jobs numbers were understated by 37,000 jobs. Does understating the initial numbers by nearly 40,000 jobs/month sound like the behavior of an agency trying to fool the public? Conspiracy theories about public entities that report every single facet of their methodology, data, and metadata are silly. [1] - http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/revisions-to-jobs-numbers.htm http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/revisions-to-jobs-numbe... [2] - http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm#Summary http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm#Summary