3 ms·

Trump's comments on the sacking.... "I was just informed that our country's 'Jobs Numbers' are being produced by a Biden appointee, Dr. Erika McEntarfar, the C

Trump's comments on the sacking.... "I was just informed that our country's 'Jobs Numbers' are being produced by a Biden appointee, Dr. Erika McEntarfar, the Commissioner of Labor Statistics, who faked the jobs numbers before the election to try and boost Kamala's chances of victory. This is the same Bureau of Labor Statistics that overstated the jobs growth in March 2024 by approximately 818,000 and, then again, right before the 2024 presidential election, in August and September, by 112,000. These were records – no one can be that wrong?"

nneonneo 1y ago
Revisions are common due to the BLS's methodology. The BLS makes estimates based on initial survey data, then produces better numbers based on additional data as it comes in. The methodology is publicized here: https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/jlt/home.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/jlt/home.htm. Trump does not like these numbers and has decided that he'd rather try to blame the messenger rather than accept this as a sign of a weakening economy. It also gives him an opportunity to install someone who might actually fudge the numbers by changing the methodology employed. Good luck, folks.
- lazyeye 1y ago
  This doesn't negate Trump's concerns. It's not that adjustments were made, it's the timing of them and the scale of them that tends to suggest a political motivation. You can not like the numbers simply because they are inaccurate. I'm in no position to make that judgement and neither are you. But given the level of hatred of Trump and the lengths the Dems will go to attempt to discredit Trump we've seen so far, it's not hard to believe that this is just another example of the abuse of political power to take out an opponent.
  - BrawnyBadger53 1y ago
    This inaccuracy to revision cycle has been consistent for as long as I can remember. Everyone whose job it is to look at these numbers should understand that the initial numbers are typically overestimated.
    - lazyeye 1y ago
      I can only repeat my previous comment....
      - blackqueeriroh 1y ago
        Yes, you can repeat your previous comment, but the data supports that this is nothing new.
        lazyeye 1y ago
        The fact that adjustments have happened in the past in no way disproves the idea that recent estimates/adjustments may have been made in support of a political agenda.
        Daishiman 1y ago
        You have suggested something without evidence. You have not put anything to argue or defend.
        lazyeye 1y ago
        Nobody here has provided any evidence for anything they've stated either. Apparently after the recent election, the jobs numbers were adjusted down by close to 800k, (meaning of course, they had been inflated by 800k prior to the election). This would be the largest adjustment in 50 years (outside of covid). Discussed here https://youtube.com/shorts/Mcpom9jUNJE https://youtube.com/shorts/Mcpom9jUNJE
        Daishiman 1y ago
        The evidence is clear as day that there's been a semester of back and forth in insane tariffs and fluctuations in the bond market that are introducing a level of self-induced uncertainty that trivially explains it.

nneonneo 1y ago

Revisions are common due to the BLS's methodology. The BLS makes estimates based on initial survey data, then produces better numbers based on additional data as it comes in. The methodology is publicized here: https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/jlt/home.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/jlt/home.htm. Trump does not like these numbers and has decided that he'd rather try to blame the messenger rather than accept this as a sign of a weakening economy. It also gives him an opportunity to install someone who might actually fudge the numbers by changing the methodology employed. Good luck, folks.

lazyeye 1y ago
This doesn't negate Trump's concerns. It's not that adjustments were made, it's the timing of them and the scale of them that tends to suggest a political motivation. You can not like the numbers simply because they are inaccurate. I'm in no position to make that judgement and neither are you. But given the level of hatred of Trump and the lengths the Dems will go to attempt to discredit Trump we've seen so far, it's not hard to believe that this is just another example of the abuse of political power to take out an opponent.
- BrawnyBadger53 1y ago
  This inaccuracy to revision cycle has been consistent for as long as I can remember. Everyone whose job it is to look at these numbers should understand that the initial numbers are typically overestimated.
  - lazyeye 1y ago
    I can only repeat my previous comment....
    - blackqueeriroh 1y ago
      Yes, you can repeat your previous comment, but the data supports that this is nothing new.
      - lazyeye 1y ago
        The fact that adjustments have happened in the past in no way disproves the idea that recent estimates/adjustments may have been made in support of a political agenda.
        Daishiman 1y ago
        You have suggested something without evidence. You have not put anything to argue or defend.
        lazyeye 1y ago
        Nobody here has provided any evidence for anything they've stated either. Apparently after the recent election, the jobs numbers were adjusted down by close to 800k, (meaning of course, they had been inflated by 800k prior to the election). This would be the largest adjustment in 50 years (outside of covid). Discussed here https://youtube.com/shorts/Mcpom9jUNJE https://youtube.com/shorts/Mcpom9jUNJE
        Daishiman 1y ago
        The evidence is clear as day that there's been a semester of back and forth in insane tariffs and fluctuations in the bond market that are introducing a level of self-induced uncertainty that trivially explains it.