44 ms·
U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier
- dyauspitr 1y ago[flagged]
- ushiroda80 1y agoAnd far more than that
- noarchy 1y agoOne can argue that we're only seeing the beginning of the destruction. The economic policies of this administration could take years to be fully realized. That also means that, unfortunately, it will take years to repair the damage.
- KingOfCoders 1y agoI don't think the trust in the US can be repaired for a very long time.
- privatelypublic 1y agoIf ever.
- joshdavham 1y agoYup. Even if Americans vote out the current administration, there’s no guarantee they won’t vote in another administration like this again. They’ve already done it twice.
- unethical_ban 1y agoWe need, at the very least, to revoke "emergency" powers of the presidency, and we need to reinforce that Congressional action overrides executive whim. The administrative state is a good thing, not a bad thing, and people like Steve Bannon are cancers on American success. Ideally, we would also ban gerrymandering, revoke unlimited anonymous political spending, and implement ranked choice voting.
- wnc3141 1y agoI think the contradiction required for this is 1) we need a strong, power concentrated leader to decisively correct the ship and prevent future abuses. 2) we then need the leader to voluntarily limit their powers.
- throw0101d 1y ago> Yup. Even if Americans vote out the current administration […] Reminder: Trump was re-elected. The first time could be considered an aberration, but the second time?
- bluGill 1y agoThere is nothing unusual about Americans here. Every democracy has the same worry, and always has. Every change in party has brought in instability, going right back to the founding of the country. Sometimes worse than others. Trump isn't that much different from some of the stupid things presidents were doing in the 1800s...
- chimeracoder 1y ago> That also means that, unfortunately, it will take years to repair the damage. If you're old enough to be reading this comment today, it's unlikely that the full damage will be repaired in your lifetime.
- tavavex 1y agoAs someone who is just starting their proper adult life, the feeling of seeing the past's most bleak, extreme, "irrational" depression fuel resurface as today's level-headed, sensible predictions for the future is difficult to describe.
- riehwvfbk 1y ago[flagged]
- wredcoll 1y agoThis downvote isn't a punishment, it's a way to help decrease the visibility of lies and missinformation. Russia literally launched an aggressive war of conquest. Any response that doesn't involve literal soldiers occupying russian cities is an extremely minor one.
- tavavex 1y agoHas either the US or the EU ever promised not to retaliate against their enemy states or something? Actually, has any nation or national organization in the world ever promised that? You know, not to engage in war or any retaliation for anything? Just be arbitrarily 'fair'? You're creating standards that simply never existed. When war is on the table, all bets are off, it has always been that way. Once you do what Russia did, no one should be required to honor anything with you. Countries are bound by laws, especially when you talk about Western countries, but there's always ways to get around to do what's needed if it's important enough - such as in military conflicts. If anything, the legal frameworks that tie their hands often prevented them from going even further, which would've been far better. It also comes off incredibly disingenuous how lightly you're treating Russia here. You're pretending as if they just had an oopsie, a momentary lapse of judgement, a minor accidental misstep, and the heartless hypocrite West unfairly punished them for it by arbitrarily declaring them 'evil'. Like anyone else is scared because they might just stumble and that'll cause them to get on the West's bad side. Unless you can think of other countries that are itching to start the new bloodiest, most cruel invasion of a sovereign nation on EU's doorstep, no one's situation mirrors Russia's. If they wanted the EU to sit idle, perhaps they shouldn't have invaded.
- geoka9 1y agoNot to mention that most (all?) of those assets haven't been seized. They were frozen (although the interest earned on them was seized by diverting it to Ukraine in some cases).
- penguin202 1y ago[dead]
- franktankbank 1y agoI think its probably a lot more complicated than that. I think this started decades ago and we are at a point of pivot. I couldn't tell you where we are pivoting to but I'm not really reassured by the obsessive metricization(?) of our economy, from the stock market to inflation numbers to jobs numbers.
- codyb 1y agoThe entire world is militarizing... so... I'm sure that's reassuring.
- triceratops 1y ago> obsessive metricization(?) of our economy Still using freedom units thank you very much, none of that metric namby-pamby /s
- newsclues 1y agoThe American economy (and society) were so great it took decades of bipartisan work for the self destruction to become evident. 50+ years https://wtfhappenedin1971.com https://wtfhappenedin1971.com
- codyklimdev 1y agoOnce the gold standard was ended and our fiat currency could be printed and given directly to the ruling class, it was effectively curtains for everyone else.
- whynotmaybe 1y agoOne weird but interesting theory : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generatio... There are recurring cycles in the American/Western history, with each cycle lasting +- 20 years. The cycles are High, Awakening, Unraveling and Crisis. We're supposedly in the Crisis cycle, where there are major crises like war, depression,revolutions that would help the society to rebuild institutions. This theory seems completely flawed as it applies itself retroactively, entrenched in confirmation bias, but still entertaining.
- electriclove 1y ago[flagged]
- dragontamer 1y agoThe last one fired the BLS head because he didn't like the jobs report? Now not only are we seeing major job loss, our statisticians are intimidated and likely are no longer reporting the truth. We now have to rely upon shittier metrics because our core numbers are worthless.
- logifail 1y ago> no longer Citation needed. POTUSes come and go, BLS figures have been suspect for a long time.
- estearum 1y agoBLS figures have been suspect for a long time as of a month ago.
- logifail 1y agoI'm not sure why you'd claim that. BLS figures have been revised downwards repeatedly over recent years. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/21/economy/bls-jobs-revisions https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/21/economy/bls-jobs-revision... "US job growth during much of the past year was significantly weaker than initially estimated, according to new data released Wednesday. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ preliminary annual benchmark review of employment data suggests that there were 818,000 fewer jobs in March of this year than were initially reported."
- wredcoll 1y agoAre you reporting on this breaking news scandal that predictions about future events are not always perfectly accurate?
- DragonStrength 1y agoThis article is saying the slowdown started as early as a year ago. That of course opens up the discussion of whether this new revision is political cover for the current administration since they just removed the BLS head.
- wnevets 1y ago"I voted for him because of the economy" - People I know
- snickerdoodle14 1y agoAlso most of HN a few months ago
- lokar 1y agoDid these people think he would actually lower prices? And that “lowering inflation “ means prices go back down?
- duped 1y agoYes
- lokar 1y agoSnark aside, I really wonder how we as a nation can get to better politics and policy when so many people are so misinformed about the basics. It seems hopeless at times.
- tencentshill 1y agoInstilling critical thinking skills from a young age. The actual educational content is far less important. "Learning how to learn" should be the primary purpose of K-12.
- squegles 1y agoHow does this comment help the discussion?
- add-sub-mul-div 1y agoIt is discussion. Continue with agreement or disagreement as desired. I'm not sure if the meta comment attempting to passive aggressively censor the original comment is needed, though.
- dyauspitr 1y agoI think the root cause is important to the discussion.
- franktankbank 1y ago[flagged]
- Nicook 1y ago[flagged]
- CaptWillard 1y agoDo you think the Trump administration is a root cause of last year's job numbers?
- strathmeyer 1y agoAlways interesting to find what we aren't supposed to be talking about.
- codr7 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- pixelpoet 1y agoYou don't think he's to blame?
- thakoppno 1y agoThe report covers the time period between April 2024 and March 2025. It seems illogical to me to put the blame entirely on one administration.
- tobias3 1y agoUsually I'd be with you. It's a big ship and even presidents have limited power to steer. But he is really doing all he can to sink it, so while one cannot blame him entirely, one can blame him: - Firing a lot of federal employees - Creating an uncertain business environment where no planning is possible via tariffs That's just what he is breaking short term. There will be no way to reverse the long term damage his policies do. I'm not arguing about goals, just looking at the execution.
- dr-detroit 1y ago[dead]
- kylebenzle 1y ago[dead]
- BrawnyBadger53 1y agoThis is probably the culmination of every administration after Clinton. Unsustainable spending that keeps going until now we are feeling the pressure. This administration is definitely acting in ways I feel are significantly suboptimal but it's unlikely to show the deeper impacts so quickly.
- JKCalhoun 1y agoIf you just keep cutting taxes of the wealthy and the corporations … this is kind of what is going to happen.
- stocksinsmocks 1y agoThese are numbers from March 2024 to March 2025, right? The current administration was present for 3 of those 12 months. I think the forces that move the whole US and world economy don’t really change between administrations.
- bitsage 1y agoThis data is mostly from last year, during Biden’s administration.
- CaptWillard 1y agoYou are commenting on a thread/story about the job numbers for last year
- pessimizer 1y agoAnd it somehow started doing it 9 months before Trump was inaugurated! The real news is that they invented time travel.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- logifail 1y agoQ: Hasn't the US monthly jobs figure frequently been revised downwards over recent years, regardless of which administration was in charge? (edit - see for instance Aug 2024: https://seekingalpha.com/news/4142722-why-was-there-such-a-big-revision-to-non-farm-payroll-growth https://seekingalpha.com/news/4142722-why-was-there-such-a-b... )
- gdulli 1y agoYou're right, I don't think that part is meant to be controversial.
- georgeecollins 1y agoThe department of labor has a methodology that gives an early number that tends to get revised. They have been doing it the same way for a long time and it would not be controversial, except the business press with too little news to report makes a big deal about it with very little context. So its, like jobs increased 200k (not saying +/- 200k is the error bar). It would be good for everyone if people who are not professional economists paid less attention to this.
- logifail 1y ago> It would be good for everyone if people who are not professional economists paid less attention to this. It would be good for everyone if the BLS figures were trusted. Even "not professional economists" might lose trust in figures which are regularly revised downwards ... months after being published.
- SpicyLemonZest 1y agoThey're preliminary figures! The only alternative is for BLS to be less transparent, collecting data and then refusing to release it until they have enough information to construct their final estimate.
- 1y ago
- deepGem 1y agoWhat I really fail to understand - how can departments like BLS screw up to this extent. Either they are grossly incompetent or they are intentionally corrupt. The data covers the period from March 2024 to March 2025 and trims the average monthly jobs gains seen during this period (roughly the last 10 months of Joe Biden's presidency and the first two months of Trump's) from a monthly average of 147,000 to about 71,000. 50% error. This is more or less consistent. How can a department have this error % and still have their job. I understand the data collection mechanism is not the most sophisticated, but even accounting for that, this consistent error % is not to be overlooked. I wonder why there is such lack of accountability from firms whose data pretty much feeds the world's economy.
- godzillabrennus 1y ago[flagged]
- soperj 1y agobecause they're asked to always have rosier numbers. They've done this forever.
- palmfacehn 1y agoAnd it is telling that a certain flavor of partisan is finds it novel. "No Matter Who Is President, Don’t Trust Government Data" >There isn’t clear, undeniable evidence that officials at the BLS are editing or making up the jobs numbers that go out to the public. But it’s easy to see why people think that they are when you look back at the series of dramatic downward revisions the Bureau has made in recent years—especially during Biden’s presidency. >The monthly jobs report is a recurring, previously scheduled drop that all major media outlets publish immediately. And whenever the headline number is dramatically large or at all higher than expectations, White House officials are quick to seize on the news to frame it as a consequence of their brilliant economic agenda. However, when these jobs figures consistently get revised at a later date—ostensibly due to new information—the revisions are rarely given the same level of attention by the media and are therefore only really noticed by the small subset of the population that is closely monitoring economic data. >So, as an example, the Biden administration was able to loudly celebrate BLS reports showing dramatic job growth month after month. And when almost all of that growth was revised away in future reports, very few people noticed. The consistently inaccurate jobs reports gave the public the false impression that the economy was booming. The fact that this was due to the same kind of mistake apparently being made over and over again struck many as suspicious. And rightfully so. >It is important to note, however, that this has continued after Biden left office. So if the BLS really was propping up initial jobs reports to make the economy look stronger under Biden, then by every meaningful indication, they have done the same thing under Trump—at least so far. https://mises.org/mises-wire/no-matter-who-president-dont-trust-government-data https://mises.org/mises-wire/no-matter-who-president-dont-tr...
- dpkirchner 1y agoHow does this compare with the ADP figures for the same time period?
- dh2022 1y agoI do not think ADP goes back and adjusts the numbers from its previous reports. I think this is because ADP does not use sampling - ADP uses the actual data from the private companies for which it provides payroll services. With this data is pretty clear, among many other things, how many people were employed at this particular company in this particular geography at this particular time. ADP then aggregates all of this data in its report.
- dpkirchner 1y agoRight -- I guess I'm wondering if ADP figures were lower than BLS figures by a proportionally significant margin (enough to possibly confirm these new values). I haven't been able to find the figures myself.
- RC_ITR 1y agoI think it's interesting that everyone's immediate reaction now-a-days is to assume incompetence or maliciousness, rather than curiosity at the root cause (very telling this attitude has even permeated a forum for supposed 'hackers'). A high-level is that 80% of the economy is very easy to track b/c it's not very volatile (teachers, for example). What we have seen is a huge surge in unpredictability in the most volatile 20% of jobs (mining, manufacturing, retail, etc.). The BLS can't really change their methods to catch up with this change for classic backwards compatibility and tech debt reasons. Part of the reason 'being a quant' is so hot right now is that we truly are in weird times where volatility is much higher than most people realize across sectors of the economy (i.e. AI is changing formerly rock-solid SWE employment trends, tariffs/electricity are quickly and randomly changing domestic manufacturing profitability, etc.). This means that if you can build systems that track data better than the old official systems, you can make some decent money investing against your knowledge. I think this is a bad state of affairs, but I don't have a good solution. Any private company won't release their data b/c it's too valuable and I am reluctant to encourage the BLS to rip up their methods when backwards compatibility is a feature worth saving.
- gdulli 1y agoAre 'hackers' allowed to have priors regarding incompetence or malice, or are we supposed to look at everything with a clean slate and no context?
- tonyedgecombe 1y agoIs there really more volatility? My gut feeling is that government interventions have flattened it over recent decades. I’d like to see some real figures on this.
- RC_ITR 1y agohttps://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Mc3z https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Mc3z Manufacturing and mining are becoming much less correlated to the overall jobs market (likely, as you point out, b/c the government smooths the other sectors). https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Mc3I https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Mc3I This is despite being a relatively flat % of employment since 2010 (after a long period of decline). https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Mc4f https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Mc4f As mentioned, there is also the weirdness of SWE's going from 'better than the overall market' to 'worse than the overall market'. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Mcer https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Mcer Retail employment is also dislocating. Those are just the examples I can think of with no research, I'm sure there are others.
- EGreg 1y ago[flagged]
- cs702 1y agoIf unemployment continues to rise, and the one-time impact on prices of tariffs leads to self-reinforcing high inflation, we'll have stagflation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation I sure hope not, because stagflation would be extremely unpleasant for everyone. Central banks like the Federal Reserve would be forced to raise interest rates, to put stress on businesses and consumers, so businesses find themselves unable to raise prices further and consumers find themselves unable to demand greater pay at work. Raising rates to put stress on businesses and consumers is the only method known to work for ending self-reinforcing high inflation. It's what Paul Volcker did at the Federal Reserve in response to the stagflation that started in the early 1970's in the US and other countries, after OPEC raised oil prices. Volcker raised the federal funds rate in fits and starts to a high of 20% in 1981: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Volcker#Chairman_of_the_Federal_Reserve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Volcker#Chairman_of_the_F... It worked. Volcker's actions are widely credited with ending self-reinforcing high inflation. His actions also triggered a recession. Stagflation itself triggered a stock market crash in 1973-1974. It took over 20 years, until 1993, for the US stock market to recover: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973%E2%80%931974_stock_market_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973%E2%80%931974_stock_market... Like I said, it would be extremely unpleasant, for everyone. I hope we don't end up with stagflation.
- txru 1y agoI heard Volcker speak once, you could still see him remembering how hated he was for those years of the Volcker Shock on his face. Strained and a little sad.
- cs702 1y agoAs he raised the federal fund rate to 20%, Volcker became widely hated indeed. Businesses and consumers suffered because of his actions. Politicians of course tried to take control of the Fed. They also tried to fire him. At one point he needed Secret Service protection. Here's an article from the 1980's about it: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-04-05-fi-492-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-04-05-fi-492-st...
- 1y ago
- StillBored 1y agoAusterity has repeatably been shown to kill economic growth and trigger recessions/depressions. Yet for whatever reason there is one party in congress who's entire economic policy is basically austerity measures. Repeatedly, the ax man comes in and cuts spending that generates multiples of economic activity in return. This happens all the time cut a $1 here and it costs $4 over there kinds of things. Infrastructure is frequently in this category, delay maintenance until it can't be repaired, or simply fail to invest until a road/bridge is gridlock 18 hours a day, or the train is to scary to ride. The current admin is doing this 10x because they aren't being smart about what they cut, just doing it for political points. Is there government waste? Sure, but that requires micro tweaks, aka instead of hiring more TSA agents maybe decide they shouldn't be randomly selecting every 3rd precheck user for additional screening/etc, or maybe decide that investing in even slower scanners isn't the right choice. Plus, in TX having seen some of these contracts the city/state gives out, the idea that private industry is more efficient is laughable. In some cases they are basically contracting out for millions of dollars a year a job that could be handled by one or two actual government employees paid less than $100k a year.
- babypuncher 1y agoWell at least the billionaire class got their massive tax cut, that's what is important. Buying food may get more difficult for the rest of us, but at least Jeff Bezos can buy another megayacht, and I'm happy for him about that.
- xrd 1y agoMe too. Since he migrated his wealth from the place he earned it for thirty years to a tax haven in Florida the realities are different. With warming tropical waters, he will need to spend more money on a yacht that can handle the bigger storms. It's not a problem you or I need to worry about, but he does, and that's probably why he is a billionaire and I'm not.
- yepitwas 1y agoA lot of current conservative grousing about the deficit is priming the electorate for destroying social security. That's why they always highlight it as the main cause of the deficit, even though it has a totally separate income stream from the rest of the budget. Republicans have done the exact opposite of balancing the budget at least since Reagan (inclusive) non-stop, zero R presidents have even done as well as democrats at pursuing a balanced budget since then, so they're not serious about it, including and perhaps especially Trump—but they really, really want to get their hands on social security, it's so much money out of the hands of rich people that they just can't stand it.
- nodesocket 1y ago[flagged]
- lantry 1y agoIf you really think Trump's reason for gutting the BLS is so it can become more accurate, I have a bridge to sell you
- nodesocket 1y ago[flagged]
- catlover76 1y ago[dead]
- putzdown 1y agoI'd love to see the evidence for or against this assertion. If BLS is grossly inaccurate, that'd be a good thing to know. If it's accurate, also good to know. Evidence?
- nodesocket 1y agoWe can start with this reading. Average monthly job growth dropped from 147,000 initially to just over 70,000 a reduction of approximately 52% from their data. This at precisely when the Fed needed to start cuts when the administration has been aggressively hammering them. Hopefully the Fed is not too late this time, and their 6+ month delay cutting won't result in a recession or serious economic impact.
- yepitwas 1y agoI expect they're correctly hesitant to cut rates at the same time as the president pursues inflationary policies, since that'd be courting stagflation, which was so bad last time it happened that it was one of the main factors that defined our politics for the following three decades.
- captainregex 1y agoif anyone else is curious, beyond all the political football stuff happening with the bureau of labor stats, Odd Lots did a good episode recently on the challenges with monthly jobs reports
- DavidPeiffer 1y agoHere are links to the episodes, for anyone interested. April 2025 interview: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/some-of-americas-most-important-economic-data-is-decaying/id1056200096?i=1000705520320 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/some-of-americas-most-... August 2025 interview (after BLS head statistician was fired): https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bill-beach-on-how-trump-just-politicized-us-economic-data/id1056200096?i=1000720631550 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bill-beach-on-how-trum... Some notes and a transcript: https://www.crisesnotes.com/bloomberg-odd-lots-podcast-transcript-an-interview-with-former-bls-commissioner-bill-beach/ https://www.crisesnotes.com/bloomberg-odd-lots-podcast-trans...
- udkl 1y agoWhat was the TLDR and main points?
- pnexk 1y agoWould also recommend the Moody's Talks podcast led by Mark Zandi, the Moody's Analytics chief economist. He's been more or less talking about this for months now and sounded the alarm much earlier than others about this prospect.
- cman1444 1y agoI second this. Probably my favorite podcast right now. Interestingly, I admire Mark's guts to make somewhat bold calls early, but I trust the co-hosts' (Marissa, Chris, and Dante) takes a bit more for some reason.
- renewiltord 1y ago[flagged]
- minorj47 1y agoI am honestly surprised considering everything we have seen regarding the reporting of the jobs report that people are taking this on face value. I think it’s more likely the numbers are being deflated to give the current administration an excuse for the recent downturn in hiring that their policies have caused.
- burnte 1y agoThe current admin would never voluntarily release bad news even as an excuse. They'd just lie about the reality.
- bpodgursky 1y agoThis would mean bad news about job growth mostly during Biden's tenure, not Trump's.
- lvl155 1y ago[flagged]
- hungmung 1y agoThis goes back to 2016, when Dems decided it was better to nominate one of the least popular American politicians in living memory than the alternative candidate who had broad working class appeal. Not to mention they juiced up Trump's campaign because that was the only candidate Mi Abuela was projected to win against. Yeah Trump may be the Antichrist but we wouldn't be here without him being able to run against some of the most comically weak candidates.
- wredcoll 1y agoDemocrat nominations are voted on by large numbers of people.
- hungmung 1y agoSuperdelegates hamstrung the process. Kate Brown for instance, the governor of Oregon at the time (who btw was an unelected governer during that term, as her predecessor had stepped down) voted against the will of her constituents for Hilldog -- Oregon had overwhelmingly supported Bernie. Let's not forget some of the caucuses in other states which were outright rigged. An auditorium blew up for Bernie but the presiding party official put it in for Clinton. When shit like that just happens out in the open you have to wonder what's going on behind closed doors. I believe Republicans actually have a democratic nomination process without superdelegates, which is how they got Trump -- IIRC he had a few early wins and snowballed from there.
- wredcoll 1y agoThere's a number of things going on here, but the short of it is that to become the democratic nominee you need to convince a whole bunch of people, including some super delegates. Hillary Clinton did a better job of this than Bernie Sanders. How she did it could probably be the subject of an entire book, but no one has ever come up with any particularly scandalous stories about it so far.
- HarHarVeryFunny 1y agoGiven that Trump recently fired his head of labor statistics, because he didn't like what was being reported, I'd take this with a grain of salt. Presumably whatever numbers are now being released are whatever "alternate facts" he wants to put out. There could be various reasons Trump wants to report bad numbers, such as pressuring the Fed to lower rates, or to establish a horrible baseline from which he can then report improvement on by the midterms. It reminds of the soviet union reporting all sorts of bogus improvement statistics by implicitly using the worst possible baseline they could - from decades earlier.
- Uehreka 1y ago> There could be various reasons Trump wants to report bad numbers, such as pressuring the Fed to lower rates, or to establish a horrible baseline from which he can then report improvement on by the midterms. Trump doesn’t play 3D chess like this, he just doesn’t. This is just him failing to have the iron grip he wants to have over things. Perhaps he’ll fire more civil servants in response, or he’ll get distracted by something else before he can do so.
- tzs 1y ago> Given that Trump recently fired his head of labor statistics, because he didn't like what was being reported, I'd take this with a grain of salt. Presumably whatever numbers are now being released are whatever "alternate facts" he wants to put out. That may someday be the case, but is is not yet. Trump fired the head, but the analysis and reports are still being produced by the professional career statisticians that have long worked there.
- jmull 1y ago> still being produced by the professional career statisticians that have long worked there ...who all know that if they want to remain employed they better produce reports The administration likes. I doubt they like it, but probably few of the rank and file can afford to take a stand.
- npalli 1y agoNot to be a Doomer but the last time I recall a revision around this magnitude was during the GFC[1]. Summary of the benchmark revisions The March 2009 benchmark level for total nonfarm employment is 131,175,000; this figure is 902,000 below the sample-based estimate for March 2009, an adjustment of -0.7 percent. Table 1 shows the total nonfarm percentage benchmark revisions for the past ten years. https://www.bls.gov/ces/publications/benchmark/ces-benchmark-revision-2009.pdf https://www.bls.gov/ces/publications/benchmark/ces-benchmark...
- CaptWillard 1y agoAmazing how many here are so quick to lay the job numbers from last year at Trump's feet.
- brandur 1y agoTo be fair I guess, the way the article is titled goes out of its way to mislead. It would be quite easy to say "Added 911,000 fewer jobs from March 2024 to March 2025" or "the year starting in March 2024", but they are clearly aiming to deflect from the Biden admin by implying last year's revisions are the fault of the administration inaugurated in January 2025. Judging by the comments here, it worked marvelously.
- jmull 1y ago> last year's revisions To be clear, these are this administration's revisions, about what happened in the previous administration. They also don't have much credibility. One problem with firing the economist running the BLS for reporting numbers the administration didn't like, and replacing her with a political loyalist is that no one will take the numbers the BLS reports seriously anymore.
- CaptWillard 1y ago" ... no one will take the numbers the BLS reports seriously anymore." Pretty sure the last five years of significant consistent downward revision did that.
- jmull 1y agoThe revision process is a normal part of reporting employment numbers. Since real-time actual numbers aren't feasible, they use approximate and correlated indicators initially and later revise when more solid data arrives. I can't tell what your point is though. It almost sounds like you're trying to say the initial BLS numbers have been politically manipulated for years since revisions have been consistently down for a while? Surely not, though, because that doesn't make any sense -- continuously applying an upward boost on initial numbers, only to have them consistently revised downward, for several years, would simply cause the system to adjust to the new norm. The absolute numbers have never been important; it's the relative numbers that count, so a consistently applied manipulation effectively becomes no manipulation over time. Anyway, there's a lack of proof of manipulation. Well, until recently, when the political manipulation was made publicly. OTOH, I suppose simple facts and logic aren't important in our post-fact world though.
- bitsage 1y agoThe revisions cover March 2024 through March 2025. While his policies may deliver turmoil in the near future, I don’t understand why most of the discussion here is about Trump. Furthermore, these revisions are at the high end of estimates, so it’s not a complete shock. The Fed and financial institutions must have already had an idea that the job market could be this bad.
- Redoubts 1y agoThis is the reason you should flag every political post here. The discussion quality isn’t getting any better than this
- throwaway-11-1 1y agoProbably because Trump is currently in power and proudly touting his economic polices as improving things when they are very clearly not.
- listenallyall 1y agoNot agreeing or disagreeing... but what metrics are you using to determine whether things are "improving" or not?
- mandeepj 1y agoFirst, political commentary should be regulated, especially from these moron podcasters! What the hell do they know? They are angry and out with an agenda!! Just to make their living from barking instead of doing a meaningful/real job. Also, I'm not sure why it's allowed to have someone come from SA/Zimbabwe and comment on posts of US political candidates. Now coming to the Right! I believe they are the single biggest reason behind America's current rot. Which problem are they trying to solve? They always contradict themselves. This is the mindset we are forced to deal with https://x.com/ENERGY/status/1964010741247168958 https://x.com/ENERGY/status/1964010741247168958 It should be compulsory for voters to vote and have them go through training to make them understand how the economy, the Fed, world trade, US intelligence, foreign policy, interest rates, and bonds work. One might argue that it should be done in the schools. Sure! But then why are we here? Of course, Right would scream as usual No, my choice. No son! Enough with your damn choices. Not voting should invite severe legal, financial, and civil penalties. That's how we are going to fix this mess!
- yogorenapan 1y agoI legitimately can't tell if this is satire. > First, political commentary should be regulated Who does the regulating? The current Trump regime? Huge first amendment violation > come from SA/Zimbabwe and comment on posts of US political candidates. Because those posts are being made on a private platform. Are you sure you want something worse than UK's Ofcom proving your American identity just to speak? > It should be compulsory for voters to vote Maybe, but definitely not in a 2 party system. > make them understand how the economy, the Fed, world trade, US intelligence, foreign policy, interest rates, and bonds work Not specifically those. Please just have universal free education. There's no need to specifically teach kids how to think politically. That's definitely going to get abused for propaganda
- mandeepj 1y ago> I legitimately can't tell if this is satire. Mine was not, but yours definitely felt like it. > Who does the regulating? The current Trump regime? Huge First Amendment violation When you are running a YouTube channel or anything similar with millions of subscribers or even a few thousand, you are no longer an individual; in fact, you become just a news channel at that point. FCC has rules [0] for news channels, and those rules should apply to these unhinged political podcasters as well. License Revocation: In extreme cases, the FCC has the power to revoke the station's broadcast license. In other words, work with the firm (Meta\Google) to get that channel suspended. Alternatively, let people add facts. I don't think YouTube does that currently. > Are you sure you want something worse than UK's Ofcom proving your American identity just to speak? What's wrong with only allowing citizens and residents to comment on their country's political matters? [0] https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting
- cantor_S_drug 1y agoI think our society has become so efficient that we definitely need Bullshit jobs to keep the economy going. Please Uncle Sam print money and give it to companies so that it trickles down to us as serve our employers. Bring Zirp back.
- whatsupdog 1y agoBut also a million self-deported. So I guess it's an equilibrium.
- Apes 1y agoPeople often get hyper-focused on a single cause, but there is a whole range of forces driving a sharp decline in jobs. All of this is visible, yet we are marching toward an economic crisis of our own making. I believe the best term for this is "gray rhino". * Tariffs and Trade Uncertainty – Elevated tariffs and rapidly shifting trade policies are raising costs for manufacturers and discouraging hiring and investment (Investopedia; Atlanta Fed survey; CBO analyses). * Automation and AI Displacement – Automation and AI, especially in low-skill occupations, are reducing new job creation and wages for some workers (academic studies in arXiv and PMC). * Restrictive Immigration Policies – Tightened immigration and visa processes are straining labor supply, particularly in sectors that rely on immigrant workers (Axios, 2025 labor coverage). * Small Business Strain from Economic Pressure – Tariff-related uncertainty is leading small businesses to slow hiring or lay off employees (Joint Economic Committee report, 2025). * Offshoring and Outsourcing Trends – Technological advances are enabling offshoring and automation, substituting domestic labor with remote or machine-based alternatives (academic research in World Development, 2024).
- araes 1y agoYup, introduced by Michelle Wucker at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland in January 2013. "highly probable, high-impact, yet neglected threat that is obvious to many but often ignored until it causes significant damage." Also contrasted with Gray Swans: "event that is known and possible, but which is assumed to be unlikely." Thanks for the reference though, had not heard of the partner theories to Black Swans. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Wucker#Gray_rhinos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Wucker#Gray_rhinos [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_swan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_swan
- kouru225 1y agoAgain? So is that head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics gonna get fired again?
- lawlessone 1y ago>the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics said Tuesday. Can they be trusted anymore since Donald is now dictating what they say?
- k3vinw 1y agoSo the federal reserve has been operating on bad intel for years? OMG
- mannyv 1y agoWhy doesn't BLS use data directly from Social Security? Everyone with a W2 pays into SS. SS also has everyone's birthdate, so it's easy to bucketize everyone into "can work" and "can't work." They can join that with Medicare/Medicaid data to find people with disabilities. The can compare pay periods to see who's unemployed etc. They can find people on disability with help from Medicare. Why is BLS waiting for state data? To find the unemployed and collecting?
- fluorinerocket 1y agoAnd the IRS. Why is this downvoted?
- geekraver 1y agoI do find it encouraging that there’s not a lot of pro-Trump sentiment on HN these days. Unlike, say, in October/November 2024…
- potbelly83 1y agoPeople have short memories, they'll come out of the woodwork in 2028 claiming the dems are taking away their freedoms.
- blurbleblurble 1y agoThanks armchair accelerationist voters
- ratelimitsteve 1y agothe economic impact of everyone knowing you can't trust government data on the economy is gonna be fun to watch. they can pretend, and they can make us pretend, but they can't make us forget that we're pretending.