3 ms·

> The president wants his own people there so that, when we see the numbers, they’re more transparent and more reliable He wants people there to be his version

by shmerl 1y ago

> The president wants his own people there so that, when we see the numbers, they’re more transparent and more reliable He wants people there to be his version of Minitrue, providing the numbers he wants to see, not the real ones: Reporting unworkers doubleplusun-good, rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling.

koolba 1y ago
Alternatively, he wants someone at the top who will create an organization that does not have to repeatedly restate massively incorrect numbers.
- shmerl 1y ago
  Or rather not mention them at all. He'd rather not bring attention to the topic to begin with.
  - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
    Nah, if the numbers make him look great he'd be all over it.
- magic_man 1y ago
  The numbers get better as they get more data.
  - mh- 1y ago
    Why not wait to release them until enough data has come in that it's settled? Serious question, what's the downside?
    - altcognito 1y ago
      Because the market values the early results and has an adult understanding of what the numbers mean.
    - csb6 1y ago
      Because the law requires them to release reports on certain dates, so they do so and then make corrections as more data comes in.
      - mh- 1y ago
        Thanks.
    - kergonath 1y ago
      It’s never settled as the data is never perfectly accurate or exhaustive. We just have to do with the caveats and understand that perfection does not exist, even if you have more data than you can handle. That’s what error bars, uncertainty analysis, and confidence intervals are for.
- keeda 1y ago
  Such an organization cannot exist. These agencies are always balancing two opposing forces, timeliness and accuracy. Data collection is inherently delayed (e.g. a lot of it is from surveys that businesses complete at their own speed, or from reports that each state/agency submits on their own timeline.) So collection for a given quarter typically completes long after the quarter is over, and then it takes some time to crunch those numbers. So if you want early data it will inherently be of limited accuracy because that involves a lot of extrapolation with whatever incomplete data has been collected by that time. If you want accurate data you will have to wait for it because that data takes longer to be collected. You do want both because you need to make timely decisions, since most times the early numbers don't get revised by much, but you also want to course-correct when later, better data gives a different signal. Agencies like the BLS publish their methodologies in great detail. Big revisions have always been happening, only they are getting more attention these days because of the heavy politicization.
  - mensetmanusman 1y ago
    They shouldn’t announce until it’s accurate then?
    - PieTime 1y ago
      Unless they are accurate most of the time, I would agree with this.
    - keeda 1y ago
      That's where the timeliness versus accuracy trade-off comes in. There is significant value in having an early signal to act on, especially as long as there is awareness of its limitations. And as I mentioned, this data does come with very clearly documented caveats and methodologies so that users can make informed decisions.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 1y ago
      Normally they're accurate enough, and the revisions/refinements are small. The initial estimates haven't been accurate recently, because many workers have been completely dropping out of the economy because they're afraid of immigration raids. Information about these workers is just harder to gather and takes longer to verify.
- altcognito 1y ago
  How massively incorrect are the numbers in comparison to previous years? Was it anything unusual? Here, take a look for yourself: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm#2024 https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm#2024 If this is an understood part of the process, why is it such a problem now? Name some organizations that have "fire employees until we get success". Does that create a culture that prizes success, or just encourage employees to hide failure?
- EndsOfnversion 1y ago
  I think you understand how labor statistics work about as well as Trump.
topspin 1y ago
[flagged]
- shmerl 1y ago
  Yeah, tin party soldier never questions anything.
  - topspin 1y ago
    Also, whataboutery.
- esseph 1y ago
  It IS THE GOVERNMENT
- scarface_74 1y ago
  The President just fired the person in charge of reporting jobs numbers because he didn’t like the report. Logically what do you think is about to happen?
- hyperadvanced 1y ago
  On this topic- last year it was somewhat common for R politicians to criticize the D regime for the “report high, revise low” strategy - if anything, I guess, this firing has been telegraphed. Anyway, those people were also called conspiracy theorists and politically motivated. There’s clearly a conflict of interest between the facts and what is politically expedient on all sides of the political system in the USA. I personally would prefer that the jobs numbers apparatus was extremely conservative in the sense that it didn’t overstate the strength of the USA economy. I doubt Trump has that goal in mind necessarily, laudable as it might be.
  - tbrownaw 1y ago
    > I personally would prefer that the jobs numbers apparatus was extremely conservative in the sense that it didn’t overstate the strength of the USA economy. This sounds like a call for it to be biased low? I'd prefer zero net bias - overstate and understate equally often - and as little error as possible. (Also, I'd like a pet unicorn for the munchkin.) The problem seems to be around the preliminary numbers and how widely they get reported. Maybe this is a case where excessive transparency and reporting partial data that's known to be inaccurate is negatively useful? Or maybe there could be some way to get people to accept that it's known to be wrong, and only useful if you have the chops to account for that wrongness in whatever you're using it for? But humans in general seem to mostly be allergic to not knowing things, so... Maybe the wrongness is predictable enough to model and account for, but publishing "expected correction" numbers along with the preliminary numbers would be extremely un-conservative in that doing that is speaking with your own voice rather than just collecting and reporting data.

by shmerl 1y ago

koolba 1y ago

Alternatively, he wants someone at the top who will create an organization that does not have to repeatedly restate massively incorrect numbers.

shmerl 1y ago
Or rather not mention them at all. He'd rather not bring attention to the topic to begin with.
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  Nah, if the numbers make him look great he'd be all over it.
magic_man 1y ago
The numbers get better as they get more data.
- mh- 1y ago
  Why not wait to release them until enough data has come in that it's settled? Serious question, what's the downside?
  - altcognito 1y ago
    Because the market values the early results and has an adult understanding of what the numbers mean.
  - csb6 1y ago
    Because the law requires them to release reports on certain dates, so they do so and then make corrections as more data comes in.
    - mh- 1y ago
      Thanks.
  - kergonath 1y ago
    It’s never settled as the data is never perfectly accurate or exhaustive. We just have to do with the caveats and understand that perfection does not exist, even if you have more data than you can handle. That’s what error bars, uncertainty analysis, and confidence intervals are for.
keeda 1y ago
Such an organization cannot exist. These agencies are always balancing two opposing forces, timeliness and accuracy. Data collection is inherently delayed (e.g. a lot of it is from surveys that businesses complete at their own speed, or from reports that each state/agency submits on their own timeline.) So collection for a given quarter typically completes long after the quarter is over, and then it takes some time to crunch those numbers. So if you want early data it will inherently be of limited accuracy because that involves a lot of extrapolation with whatever incomplete data has been collected by that time. If you want accurate data you will have to wait for it because that data takes longer to be collected. You do want both because you need to make timely decisions, since most times the early numbers don't get revised by much, but you also want to course-correct when later, better data gives a different signal. Agencies like the BLS publish their methodologies in great detail. Big revisions have always been happening, only they are getting more attention these days because of the heavy politicization.
- mensetmanusman 1y ago
  They shouldn’t announce until it’s accurate then?
  - PieTime 1y ago
    Unless they are accurate most of the time, I would agree with this.
  - keeda 1y ago
    That's where the timeliness versus accuracy trade-off comes in. There is significant value in having an early signal to act on, especially as long as there is awareness of its limitations. And as I mentioned, this data does come with very clearly documented caveats and methodologies so that users can make informed decisions.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 1y ago
    Normally they're accurate enough, and the revisions/refinements are small. The initial estimates haven't been accurate recently, because many workers have been completely dropping out of the economy because they're afraid of immigration raids. Information about these workers is just harder to gather and takes longer to verify.
altcognito 1y ago
How massively incorrect are the numbers in comparison to previous years? Was it anything unusual? Here, take a look for yourself: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm#2024 https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm#2024 If this is an understood part of the process, why is it such a problem now? Name some organizations that have "fire employees until we get success". Does that create a culture that prizes success, or just encourage employees to hide failure?
EndsOfnversion 1y ago
I think you understand how labor statistics work about as well as Trump.

topspin 1y ago

[flagged]

shmerl 1y ago
Yeah, tin party soldier never questions anything.
- topspin 1y ago
  Also, whataboutery.
esseph 1y ago
It IS THE GOVERNMENT
scarface_74 1y ago
The President just fired the person in charge of reporting jobs numbers because he didn’t like the report. Logically what do you think is about to happen?
hyperadvanced 1y ago
On this topic- last year it was somewhat common for R politicians to criticize the D regime for the “report high, revise low” strategy - if anything, I guess, this firing has been telegraphed. Anyway, those people were also called conspiracy theorists and politically motivated. There’s clearly a conflict of interest between the facts and what is politically expedient on all sides of the political system in the USA. I personally would prefer that the jobs numbers apparatus was extremely conservative in the sense that it didn’t overstate the strength of the USA economy. I doubt Trump has that goal in mind necessarily, laudable as it might be.
- tbrownaw 1y ago
  > I personally would prefer that the jobs numbers apparatus was extremely conservative in the sense that it didn’t overstate the strength of the USA economy. This sounds like a call for it to be biased low? I'd prefer zero net bias - overstate and understate equally often - and as little error as possible. (Also, I'd like a pet unicorn for the munchkin.) The problem seems to be around the preliminary numbers and how widely they get reported. Maybe this is a case where excessive transparency and reporting partial data that's known to be inaccurate is negatively useful? Or maybe there could be some way to get people to accept that it's known to be wrong, and only useful if you have the chops to account for that wrongness in whatever you're using it for? But humans in general seem to mostly be allergic to not knowing things, so... Maybe the wrongness is predictable enough to model and account for, but publishing "expected correction" numbers along with the preliminary numbers would be extremely un-conservative in that doing that is speaking with your own voice rather than just collecting and reporting data.