10 ms·
Was the Real Jobs Revision Negative 818,000 or Negative 915,000?
- mrbluecoat 2y agoNewb question: Are revisions of this scale normal for jobs data?
- readthenotes1 2y agoIt's unusual: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/21/us-job-growth-revised-down-by-the-most-since-2009-why-this-time-is-different.html https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/21/us-job-growth-revised-down-b... Also unusual is the study pacing of the downward revisions which has been going on during the current administration. I believe I read somewhere that there have been more negative revisions in a row under Biden than any previous president. People who follow job State and know that the numbers were messed up because the household survey shows quite a different story. You can also add into the swelter of government data that most of the jobs created since 2019 have gone to foreign-born people. I don't have anything against people not born in America having a job, I just find it suspect that they are driving out American job seekers so handily.
- mc32 2y agoThe main job of a government is to look after those people who elected it -its constituency. If there is a deficit of job seekers, then by all means, import the labor, but the government should not allow foreign workers to undermine its own constituency. I mean, unless, we get something in return from the foreign governments --I don't mean cheaper clothing or cheaper labor. If we went all the way for that, we'd reach a global equilibrium where everyone would earn $1/hr --I doubt anyone but foreigners earning less than a $1 per hour would want that, but you never know, some people do go against their own self interest.
- John_Cena 2y agoIt is trivial to make the case that you need to import your labor in the tech sector. They are incentivized to hire outside since the visa/h1b stipulations make their new worker a step above an indentured worker. The incentives for corporations are misaligned with the constituency as well, and from my perspective they work together to rule in the modern day. A corporation can run away from a country they created, a citizen cannot do so as readily.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Rury 2y agoRevisions are normal, although 800k is fairly high. Most of this scale are usually 200k-300k, though in 2019 we had a revision of ~500k.
- listenallyall 2y ago> fairly high Very high. Largest since -824,000 in 2009. "Great recession" and all that. You can decide for yourself if the initial numbers may have been intentionally over-reported to enable media outlets to publish articles and op-eds about how great the economy is under certain politicians, and then have the "correction" in fine print months later, where very few people will notice.
- pylua 2y agoI feel like if this was the case the truth wouldn’t come out this close to an election. It really just shows how inept the government can be.
- listenallyall 2y agoThe release date of the annual revision is known well in advance, it's in August every year.
- alphabettsy 2y agoThere’s a larger revision in 2021, but it happens to be in the other direction. The adjustment was less than 1% on data that is always adjusted as far as I can tell. Pre-Covid the adjustment in this story, https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-created-500000-fewer-jobs-since-2018-than-previously-reported-new-figures-show-2019-08-21 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-created-500000-fewer-jo..., was 500k jobs. Given the history of this type of figure and reporting I don’t buy that argument at all. The correction is everywhere today, on all the news networks just as it has been in the past.
- listenallyall 2y agoIt is always adjusted, but as noted, not always downwards, and almost never to this degree. Your claim about 2021 is incorrect. As far as 1%, nobody cares about the total number of jobs, the only thing that matters is the number added or lost. This revision corrects about a 40% overstatement over the latest full year of monthly reports. This is news for one day. A booming economy, massive job growth, etc has been the reporting for over a year. Do you expect the President to return to the convention and correct his own speech from Monday?
- wakawaka28 2y agoIt's been happening for a few years. It's unacceptable yet commonplace. But hey, at least they did revise it!
- TradingPlaces 2y agoThe biggest issue is that the model for births/deaths of employers was wrong and over-estimating the number of employers. This accounted for about half the revision. https://www.atlantafed.org/-/media/documents/research/publications/policy-hub/2024/08/12/06--what-accounts-for-growing-divergence-between-employment-measures.pdf https://www.atlantafed.org/-/media/documents/research/public... This also means that the other side of the Jobs Report, the household survey, or CPS, is undercounting employment by ~3 million, but that one never gets revised.
- varenc 2y agoSome revisions yes, but this is a big one. This discrepancy is because the initial numbers are determined based on surveys and the later revised numbers use more reliable but more slowly updated IRS reporting. (I believe)
- m0llusk 2y agoThese numbers are calculated, at least initially, as statistical constructions based on trends. That means that when markets changes abruptly, such as in the most recent months, the actual job numbers fall much farther than predictions.
- lispisok 2y agoSome interesting charts https://fred.stlouisfed.org/categories/32444 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/categories/32444
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y agoThe massive decline in employment of disabled workers is the most concerning thing I saw.
- TradingPlaces 2y agohttps://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesprelbmk.htm https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesprelbmk.htm
- m348e912 2y agoYou could ask the secretary of commerce, but I suspect she doesn't know. https://x.com/greg_price11/status/1826378177754935482 https://x.com/greg_price11/status/1826378177754935482
- coolbreezetft24 2y agoThis guys posting history is extremely partisan, it really undermines the message
- ESTheComposer 2y ago[dead]
- djohnston 2y agoDo you think the video is a deep fake because you don’t like Republicans?
- tiltowait 2y agoThe cut makes it sound like she “isn’t familiar” with the Bureau of Labor. I assume she said “with that figure” or something of the sort :) It’s a bad response, but also not surprising, since her job is to be ra-ra-ra. (Which isn’t me excusing her, not by any means.)
- squigz 2y agoIndeed. Given the cut, and not being able to find this interview elsewhere, I don't put much stock in this video.
- m348e912 2y agohttps://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/examining-vp-harris-economic-plan-113034748?fromLive=true https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/examining-vp-harris-ec...
- underseacables 2y agoDoes this give us any indication of the chance of a recession?
- amy-petrik-214 2y agoYes. It indicates there is one. If you review the numbers, it's clear they are cheesing the numbers. It's a bit like national debt. In national debt, if you owe $100 today, you will owe $200 tomorrow, $300 the next day, and so on -- debt accumulates in a cumulative manner. So for unemployment the plan is to cheese the numbers, to accumulate, in a similar fashion. When Kamala wins, and Trump triggers the riots, they'll have a snatch & power grab and punt all the job losses to the other team. Then, thusly, the employment debt is eliminated.