5 ms·

Presumably private firms will become a necessary component of economic projections since BLS statistics will be less trustworthy going forward.

dv_dt 1y ago
We have been seeing news reporting, media, and education private organizations knuckling under from pressure by the administration - is there any reason to believe that we would not see the same from data reporting companies
- root_axis 1y ago
  Fair point, but private organizations would at least have a financial incentive to give accurate numbers since that's they're business, if they earn a reputation of unreliability then there'd be no reason to pay them, you could just trust the government numbers for free.
  - jeffhwang 1y ago
    There's significant evidence contradicting this hypothesis. See industry analysts like Gartner, IDC, etc. who all ask tech firms to "pay to play" for better rankings in their reports. As well as the ratings agencies like Moody's, S&P's, and Fitch during the 2008 financial crisis. These ratings agencies were paid by the banks selling CDOs, MBS, and other debt derivatives that were especially tied to the US housing market. The agencies were incentivized to not downgrade those products. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the_subprime_crisis#Competitive_pressure_to_lower_standards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the...
    - root_axis 1y ago
      This makes sense. Thanks for the info.
    - tristor 1y ago
      > See industry analysts like Gartner, IDC, etc. who all ask tech firms to "pay to play" for better rankings in their reports. Do you have any evidence of this happening? I've been involved on the side of the firm in many of these analyst reports, and I've never seen this happen. What /does/ happen is that to be listed at all, e.g. to have the analyst invest time/resources to review you, you have to pay. They don't exhaustively review every company in the segment or every product in the segment, regardless of size and market position. They only review those who pay to be reviewed or are large enough in market position that they are must-reviews (almost all of which also pay). But I've never seen the rankings/outcome dictated by pay at all. Much to my chagrin sometimes, the analyst will lower your ranking due to something I may have felt was a small issue, but they considered a large issue. Analyst Relations is a major investment area for large tech companies, and given my exposure over the last nearly decade, I've never seen any form of quid pro quo / money changing hands.
  - elictronic 1y ago
    You pay for the business that provides the numbers you want. Accuracy is desired only in setting a baseline to be below. Reducing social security is the desired outcome not accuracy.
  - phkahler 1y ago
    >> Fair point, but private organizations would at least have a financial incentive to give accurate numbers since that's they're business Private organizations will quickly start providing numbers that their customers want to see. Remember the risk ratings agencies prior to 2008? Yeah, finance guys want accurate risk assessments internally, but they always want good ratings on the stuff they're selling. Good ratings are a lubricant on transactions and since ratings are paid for by people making transactions there is more pressure in one direction.
  - rtkwe 1y ago
    > financial incentive to give accurate numbers since that's they're business The Trump admin has already shown a complete willingness to exert financial pressure on companies and organizations to compel compliance and our hypothetical private BLS replacement is not magically insulated from those pressures and threats. > you could just trust the government numbers for free. They're clearly in the middle of an attempt to cook the numbers to make the President look good.
JKCalhoun 1y ago
Love it. You can then just pick the numbers from the firm that is saying what you want to hear.
- root_axis 1y ago
  Yeah, it sucks for the public, but I assume if you're working in FP&A your company will pay for accurate statistics.
  - rtkwe 1y ago
    If those statistics are even available. Part of the employment numbers is a 60,000 household survey they conduct with the help of the census bureau I doubt there's going to be a consistent survey of that scale done on the private dime. Not to mention all the statistics businesses are required legally to submit to the government that these hypothetical private replacements would never have access to.
- komali2 1y ago
  Or also, all firms will say what you want to hear, like modern ratings agencies already do. Because otherwise you won't ever shop at the ones who give you bad numbers, and market pressure will turn them all into a ratings shop.
  - mywittyname 1y ago
    "Bad" numbers are what companies are paying for. If I'm a sailor paying for weather data related to my trip, I want to know about the dangerous weather.
    - bigbadfeline 1y ago
      > "Bad" numbers are what companies are paying for. You've never heard of the stock market, have you? Nobody cares about the "weather", they all want low interest rates and reports that justify the Fed taking interest rates to zero and below. That's it, nothing else matters. > If I'm a sailor... You aren't. Wake up.
derbOac 1y ago
What I really would like to see is a historical trend analysis seeing whether BLS and nongovernment estimates (public or private) start to decouple about now. If you have enough sources you presumably at least can start to make observations about which sources agree and which disagree. Actually I presume something like this already exists, but I'm not an economist so I don't know.
vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
It will turn out like LIBOR and they will provide numbers that are producing profit for them.

dv_dt 1y ago

We have been seeing news reporting, media, and education private organizations knuckling under from pressure by the administration - is there any reason to believe that we would not see the same from data reporting companies

root_axis 1y ago
Fair point, but private organizations would at least have a financial incentive to give accurate numbers since that's they're business, if they earn a reputation of unreliability then there'd be no reason to pay them, you could just trust the government numbers for free.
- jeffhwang 1y ago
  There's significant evidence contradicting this hypothesis. See industry analysts like Gartner, IDC, etc. who all ask tech firms to "pay to play" for better rankings in their reports. As well as the ratings agencies like Moody's, S&P's, and Fitch during the 2008 financial crisis. These ratings agencies were paid by the banks selling CDOs, MBS, and other debt derivatives that were especially tied to the US housing market. The agencies were incentivized to not downgrade those products. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the_subprime_crisis#Competitive_pressure_to_lower_standards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the...
  - root_axis 1y ago
    This makes sense. Thanks for the info.
  - tristor 1y ago
    > See industry analysts like Gartner, IDC, etc. who all ask tech firms to "pay to play" for better rankings in their reports. Do you have any evidence of this happening? I've been involved on the side of the firm in many of these analyst reports, and I've never seen this happen. What /does/ happen is that to be listed at all, e.g. to have the analyst invest time/resources to review you, you have to pay. They don't exhaustively review every company in the segment or every product in the segment, regardless of size and market position. They only review those who pay to be reviewed or are large enough in market position that they are must-reviews (almost all of which also pay). But I've never seen the rankings/outcome dictated by pay at all. Much to my chagrin sometimes, the analyst will lower your ranking due to something I may have felt was a small issue, but they considered a large issue. Analyst Relations is a major investment area for large tech companies, and given my exposure over the last nearly decade, I've never seen any form of quid pro quo / money changing hands.
- elictronic 1y ago
  You pay for the business that provides the numbers you want. Accuracy is desired only in setting a baseline to be below. Reducing social security is the desired outcome not accuracy.
- phkahler 1y ago
  >> Fair point, but private organizations would at least have a financial incentive to give accurate numbers since that's they're business Private organizations will quickly start providing numbers that their customers want to see. Remember the risk ratings agencies prior to 2008? Yeah, finance guys want accurate risk assessments internally, but they always want good ratings on the stuff they're selling. Good ratings are a lubricant on transactions and since ratings are paid for by people making transactions there is more pressure in one direction.
- rtkwe 1y ago
  > financial incentive to give accurate numbers since that's they're business The Trump admin has already shown a complete willingness to exert financial pressure on companies and organizations to compel compliance and our hypothetical private BLS replacement is not magically insulated from those pressures and threats. > you could just trust the government numbers for free. They're clearly in the middle of an attempt to cook the numbers to make the President look good.

JKCalhoun 1y ago

Love it. You can then just pick the numbers from the firm that is saying what you want to hear.

root_axis 1y ago
Yeah, it sucks for the public, but I assume if you're working in FP&A your company will pay for accurate statistics.
- rtkwe 1y ago
  If those statistics are even available. Part of the employment numbers is a 60,000 household survey they conduct with the help of the census bureau I doubt there's going to be a consistent survey of that scale done on the private dime. Not to mention all the statistics businesses are required legally to submit to the government that these hypothetical private replacements would never have access to.
komali2 1y ago
Or also, all firms will say what you want to hear, like modern ratings agencies already do. Because otherwise you won't ever shop at the ones who give you bad numbers, and market pressure will turn them all into a ratings shop.
- mywittyname 1y ago
  "Bad" numbers are what companies are paying for. If I'm a sailor paying for weather data related to my trip, I want to know about the dangerous weather.
  - bigbadfeline 1y ago
    > "Bad" numbers are what companies are paying for. You've never heard of the stock market, have you? Nobody cares about the "weather", they all want low interest rates and reports that justify the Fed taking interest rates to zero and below. That's it, nothing else matters. > If I'm a sailor... You aren't. Wake up.

derbOac 1y ago

What I really would like to see is a historical trend analysis seeing whether BLS and nongovernment estimates (public or private) start to decouple about now. If you have enough sources you presumably at least can start to make observations about which sources agree and which disagree. Actually I presume something like this already exists, but I'm not an economist so I don't know.

vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago

It will turn out like LIBOR and they will provide numbers that are producing profit for them.