7 ms·

US employment falls by 818,000 in latest government revision

31 points by xnhbx 2y ago

EricE 2y ago
It didn't fall - they have been overstating it for years and the cat slipped out of the bag
- pfannkuchen 2y ago
  What mechanism do they use to overstate it?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > What mechanism do they use to overstate it? Statistical illiteracy in American early (EDIT: primary) education. The magnitude of this revision, for example, is -0.5 percent.
    - egberts1 2y ago
      Magnitude of 0.5!!! Percent? Anyone who makes estimation of economy with a tolerance of MAGNITUDE 0.5% should be fired.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        You may be confusing magnitude [1] and orders of magnitude [2]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitude_(mathematics) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitude_(mathematics) [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude
        egberts1 2y ago
        Could have sworn I read " ... order of magnitude ..." Won't bother to recheck, me that is.
    - linotype 2y ago
      > Statistical illiteracy in American early education. This commentary isn’t necessary. It’s also odd, as no country teaches statistics in early education.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - BobaFloutist 2y ago
        [flagged]
- NearAP 2y ago
  They have a fixed methodology and they also revise it as data comes in - usually after the report has been released for one or more months (see [1], [2]) 1. https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/revisions-to-jobs-numbers.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/revisions-to-jobs-numb... 2. https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/sep/12/revisions-jobs-data-what-you-need-know/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/sep/12/revisions-job...
  - fasa99 2y ago
    Your counterpoint presents citations from the year 2019 and circa 2012. OP there posted that they were now cheesing the numbers "for years" - seems to me "for years" might cover the range 2020 (COVID) - 2024, but not your citations. Anything that says under the post-covid administration they aren't cheesing the job numbers? This article: https://recruitonomics.com/revisions-to-the-job-numbers-may-trouble-the-fed/ https://recruitonomics.com/revisions-to-the-job-numbers-may-... Posits that indeed during recessions, most revisions are negative, and the reverse is true for economic booms. So if we think maybe there's some kind of recession in the 2020-2024 time range it might be expected to see a series of downward revisions. The more tender point is whether these ongoing downward revisions are simply the nature of the beast, or if someone is pressing their thumb and cheesing the numbers a bit to give the impression of no-recession. This is a tender point because some of the unemployment metrics are sus i.e. "people who have been looking for a job for 1-9 weeks, but not more, and it's a full moon on a Tuesday". The more that diverges from (100% - <Definitely employed %>), the more that definition of unemployed is cheesing it. But if the numbers are getting tuned up over here, it's natural to suspect the same party is tuning up numbers over there too.
- RobLach 2y ago
  These numbers have paper trails which would require large conspiracy among civil servants who have really no reason to care about fudging numbers... and if they had this conspiracy operating why would they reveal this at all? It would require an oversight investigation of some sort beforehand.
  - washadjeffmad 2y ago
    Besides (not) being told "this is how we're counting", there are incentives that align with functional overstatement. A weak example is keeping people on payroll who may not have active contracts. There's no reason to purge them if they're eligible to resume working (within the allowed period, which may be, say, 12-18 months), but it's not strictly fair to count them as being employed in the same way as a traditional 12 month FT hire. Last year, we purged over a thousand people from payroll who hadn't officially separated. Unusual, but not abnormal. Who would call that a conspiracy? I think it's convenient to lie in aggregate, especially when "job creation" and high payroll counts loosely correspond to economic growth and if not eligible voters, then at least tax revenues.
- Spooky23 2y ago
  No. If you’d bother to spend any time learning about how this process works, you’d hold a different opinion.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
AtlasBarfed 2y ago
Imo the us desperately needs to break up large monopolies and reestablish or increase free market competition. It increases innovation, increases jobs, increases labor movement, and decreases inflation. I'm of the opinion that a great deal of the last round of inflation was companies realizing their cartel power to set high prices because meaningful competition is so rare. We like will be onshoring or near shoring more production in the coming decades and large cartel powers are less likely to do so because of sunk costs. ... It won't happen though.
- bwb 2y ago
  It might, some good steps appearing. Lets check back in 12 years
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mainecoder 2y ago
  Manufacturing is getting worse from the U.S. Air Force having to reverse engineer parts to the U.S. Navy facing similar challenges with obsolete components and diminishing manufacturing sources for its aging fleet. Boeing in decline ... the list goes on but then there is SpaceX.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > from the U.S. Air Force having to reverse engineer parts to the U.S. Navy facing similar challenges with obsolete components and diminishing manufacturing sources for its aging fleet Military procurement is a bad source from which to project all American manufacturing. You’re also comparing a quality problem (USAF) to a quantity problem (closing shipyards).
    - HillRat 2y ago
      Also that a lot of (specifically Navy) sourcing problems come from DOD being the only buyer of obsolete products, such as 8-bit microcontrollers used in fire control systems designed in the 1970s.
InDubioProRubio 2y ago
Employment is not a meaningful metric. During the Nile-floodings, employment was at an all time high - and that was a pyramid-scheme.
- octopoc 2y ago
  Seasonal employment is tracked separately and can be accounted for[1]. [1] https://www.bls.gov/sae/seasonal-adjustment/ https://www.bls.gov/sae/seasonal-adjustment/ > Seasonal adjustment eliminates the part of the change attributable to the normal seasonal variation and makes it possible to observe the cyclical and other nonseasonal movements in CES State and Area series.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
Note that this is still a preliminary revision. The first estimate is “based on a monthly survey of about 560,000 worksites” [1]. While this is fast, “many businesses do not have their payroll data ready to report by the scheduled date that BLS initially releases the data.” The second estimate, this one, incorporates “state unemployment insurance (UI) tax records that nearly all employers are required to file” [2]. These data keep getting updated as survey figures come in, all the way to tax filings the following year. Because the easiest response—to a survey or for filings—is “no change,” the employers making the most changes, whether hiring or firing, respond and file the latest. That makes the figures lagging. When the economy is booming, the numbers are revised up. When it’s falling, down. Those who can read the data know this is natural, given the methodology. Those who cannot see conspiracy in a cover-up (when numbers are revised down) or the deep state not giving their team credit (when up). [1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/revisions-to-jobs-numbers.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/revisions-to-jobs-numb... [2] https://www.bls.gov/ces/notices/2024/2024-preliminary-benchmark-revision.htm https://www.bls.gov/ces/notices/2024/2024-preliminary-benchm...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
[dupe] News from 2 days ago, discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41311519 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41311519

31 points by xnhbx 2y ago

EricE 2y ago

It didn't fall - they have been overstating it for years and the cat slipped out of the bag

pfannkuchen 2y ago
What mechanism do they use to overstate it?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > What mechanism do they use to overstate it? Statistical illiteracy in American early (EDIT: primary) education. The magnitude of this revision, for example, is -0.5 percent.
  - egberts1 2y ago
    Magnitude of 0.5!!! Percent? Anyone who makes estimation of economy with a tolerance of MAGNITUDE 0.5% should be fired.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      You may be confusing magnitude [1] and orders of magnitude [2]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitude_(mathematics) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitude_(mathematics) [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude
      - egberts1 2y ago
        Could have sworn I read " ... order of magnitude ..." Won't bother to recheck, me that is.
  - linotype 2y ago
    > Statistical illiteracy in American early education. This commentary isn’t necessary. It’s also odd, as no country teaches statistics in early education.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - BobaFloutist 2y ago
      [flagged]
NearAP 2y ago
They have a fixed methodology and they also revise it as data comes in - usually after the report has been released for one or more months (see [1], [2]) 1. https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/revisions-to-jobs-numbers.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/revisions-to-jobs-numb... 2. https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/sep/12/revisions-jobs-data-what-you-need-know/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/sep/12/revisions-job...
- fasa99 2y ago
  Your counterpoint presents citations from the year 2019 and circa 2012. OP there posted that they were now cheesing the numbers "for years" - seems to me "for years" might cover the range 2020 (COVID) - 2024, but not your citations. Anything that says under the post-covid administration they aren't cheesing the job numbers? This article: https://recruitonomics.com/revisions-to-the-job-numbers-may-trouble-the-fed/ https://recruitonomics.com/revisions-to-the-job-numbers-may-... Posits that indeed during recessions, most revisions are negative, and the reverse is true for economic booms. So if we think maybe there's some kind of recession in the 2020-2024 time range it might be expected to see a series of downward revisions. The more tender point is whether these ongoing downward revisions are simply the nature of the beast, or if someone is pressing their thumb and cheesing the numbers a bit to give the impression of no-recession. This is a tender point because some of the unemployment metrics are sus i.e. "people who have been looking for a job for 1-9 weeks, but not more, and it's a full moon on a Tuesday". The more that diverges from (100% - <Definitely employed %>), the more that definition of unemployed is cheesing it. But if the numbers are getting tuned up over here, it's natural to suspect the same party is tuning up numbers over there too.
RobLach 2y ago
These numbers have paper trails which would require large conspiracy among civil servants who have really no reason to care about fudging numbers... and if they had this conspiracy operating why would they reveal this at all? It would require an oversight investigation of some sort beforehand.
- washadjeffmad 2y ago
  Besides (not) being told "this is how we're counting", there are incentives that align with functional overstatement. A weak example is keeping people on payroll who may not have active contracts. There's no reason to purge them if they're eligible to resume working (within the allowed period, which may be, say, 12-18 months), but it's not strictly fair to count them as being employed in the same way as a traditional 12 month FT hire. Last year, we purged over a thousand people from payroll who hadn't officially separated. Unusual, but not abnormal. Who would call that a conspiracy? I think it's convenient to lie in aggregate, especially when "job creation" and high payroll counts loosely correspond to economic growth and if not eligible voters, then at least tax revenues.
Spooky23 2y ago
No. If you’d bother to spend any time learning about how this process works, you’d hold a different opinion.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

AtlasBarfed 2y ago

Imo the us desperately needs to break up large monopolies and reestablish or increase free market competition. It increases innovation, increases jobs, increases labor movement, and decreases inflation. I'm of the opinion that a great deal of the last round of inflation was companies realizing their cartel power to set high prices because meaningful competition is so rare. We like will be onshoring or near shoring more production in the coming decades and large cartel powers are less likely to do so because of sunk costs. ... It won't happen though.

bwb 2y ago
It might, some good steps appearing. Lets check back in 12 years
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mainecoder 2y ago
Manufacturing is getting worse from the U.S. Air Force having to reverse engineer parts to the U.S. Navy facing similar challenges with obsolete components and diminishing manufacturing sources for its aging fleet. Boeing in decline ... the list goes on but then there is SpaceX.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > from the U.S. Air Force having to reverse engineer parts to the U.S. Navy facing similar challenges with obsolete components and diminishing manufacturing sources for its aging fleet Military procurement is a bad source from which to project all American manufacturing. You’re also comparing a quality problem (USAF) to a quantity problem (closing shipyards).
  - HillRat 2y ago
    Also that a lot of (specifically Navy) sourcing problems come from DOD being the only buyer of obsolete products, such as 8-bit microcontrollers used in fire control systems designed in the 1970s.

InDubioProRubio 2y ago

Employment is not a meaningful metric. During the Nile-floodings, employment was at an all time high - and that was a pyramid-scheme.

octopoc 2y ago
Seasonal employment is tracked separately and can be accounted for[1]. [1] https://www.bls.gov/sae/seasonal-adjustment/ https://www.bls.gov/sae/seasonal-adjustment/ > Seasonal adjustment eliminates the part of the change attributable to the normal seasonal variation and makes it possible to observe the cyclical and other nonseasonal movements in CES State and Area series.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

Note that this is still a preliminary revision. The first estimate is “based on a monthly survey of about 560,000 worksites” [1]. While this is fast, “many businesses do not have their payroll data ready to report by the scheduled date that BLS initially releases the data.” The second estimate, this one, incorporates “state unemployment insurance (UI) tax records that nearly all employers are required to file” [2]. These data keep getting updated as survey figures come in, all the way to tax filings the following year. Because the easiest response—to a survey or for filings—is “no change,” the employers making the most changes, whether hiring or firing, respond and file the latest. That makes the figures lagging. When the economy is booming, the numbers are revised up. When it’s falling, down. Those who can read the data know this is natural, given the methodology. Those who cannot see conspiracy in a cover-up (when numbers are revised down) or the deep state not giving their team credit (when up). [1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/revisions-to-jobs-numbers.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/revisions-to-jobs-numb... [2] https://www.bls.gov/ces/notices/2024/2024-preliminary-benchmark-revision.htm https://www.bls.gov/ces/notices/2024/2024-preliminary-benchm...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

[dupe] News from 2 days ago, discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41311519 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41311519