***BREAKING*** TACO gets even more bad news on US economy

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Analysts expect U.S. jobs figures to face further revisions this year, after downward adjustments to recent data angered President Donald Trump and led him to the fire the country's top employment statistician.

According to a note released by Goldman Sachs over the weekend, preliminary revision estimates set to be published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) in September will reveal a 550,000-950,000 downward revision for the 12-month period through March 2025.

MORE

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-gets-even-more-bad-news-on-us-economy/ar-AA1JSvhc?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=689118064df34199b5814c0c95c26179&ei=7

[Demovictory9]

1. Someone is getting fired

[BattleRow]

67. TACO will be only a shell of himself ...after he explodes.

[maxsolomon]

2. Well, 12-month period back to March 2024 is Biden's era.

A revision of 50K to 80K per month over the last year? Is that in addition to the initial revisions?

[MichMan]

7. How is it that the estimates are always consistently wrong?

[Skittles]

8. regardless

it's gonna be harder and harder for that fascist orange fuck to gaslight us regarding the economy

[EdmondDantes_]

9. Because when the estimates are made only about 73% of the data is in

https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/revisions-to-jobs-numbers.htm

If that data isn't a random representative sample, the numbers will likely be off by a larger amount.

[wishstar]

10. Many employers fail to report their numbers timely causing delay in accuracy

so the numbers are incomplete and substantially lagging before more reports come in and get tallied.

[Random Boomer]

14. Because they are estimates

By their nature, estimates are "a preliminary result of the data we have collected so far." As more and more data comes in, the estimates are re-calculated.

[MichMan]

17. So pretty much just bullshit numbers based on incomplete data

[ToxMarz]

25. No, but they have to balance timelimess and accuracy

The markets and policy makers need more timely information than waiting until every piece of data in. Often the shortcomings of the report are known and decisions can be made using what they do know. Many people only look at the 'score' and revisions instead of understanding what is being reported and how to use it. Most often they are pretty useful. Often when the are substantially off, there is something also to be learned from the why.

[DBoon]

38. What do you want? Quick, accurate or inexpensive?

Pick one of the three

[ProfessorGAC]

47. You Can Have Two

But, you can't have all 3.

You can have quick & accurate, but it will cost you.
You can have quick & inexpensive, but don't count on good numbers.
You can have accurate & inexpensive, but it will take a long time.

Identical to capital project management where the 3 legs are cost, schedule, & quality.
You can only have 2 of those.

[Wiz Imp]

41. Um, those "large" revisions for May & June? They actually represent a change of less than one tenth of one percent

Even when you have a month with larger than normal revision like this, relative to the size of the data set being estimated, the revisions are in fact miniscule.

They are in no way "bullshit" numbers.

[MichMan]

43. They are going back nearly a year with revisions

I understand from one month to the next, but ten months?

[Wiz Imp]

45. That is the procedure. I've explained this multiple times here already but I'll do it one more time.

The estimates each month are produced from a sample of employers reporting their monthly employment levels. They are revised twice to account for late reported data. Ultimately these are still estimates. The universe of all jobs comes from UI Records which are required to be reported each quarter for every employer in every state. Once those universe counts are received and edited to remove obviously erroneous data, the March estimate is replaced with the universe count and then the difference is wedged back thru April of the prior year. This process is called benchmarking and It's been done that way since the beginning of the Survey in 1939 and is standard statistical procedure.

So every year, when January estimates are first released at the beginning of February, the data going back 21 months is revised. In fact, seasonally adjusted data are revised at least 5 years to account for updated seasonal adjustment factors. As I said, it has been done since the beginning and there is nothing unusual or remotely questionable about it.

Read about it here:
https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cestn.htm
https://www.bls.gov/blog/2019/what-is-benchmarking-of-bureau-of-labor-statistics-employment-data.htm

[MichMan]

63. Miniscule?

The U.S. only added 19,000 jobs in May compared to an initial report of 144,000, and only 14,000 in June after an initial report of 147,000, according to the BLS. Those two paltry totals, plus a July jobs gain of 73,000, means the U.S. added just 106,000 jobs over the past three months.

How is going from 144,000 to 19,000 miniscule? Overstated by 7.5 times.

0.1% of 144,000 would be a revision of only 144 jobs, not 125,000.

[Wiz Imp]

64. You're apparently confused about the actual data being estimated here.

The number being estimated is the number of jobs NOT the change in jobs. So the real measure of the revision in the estimates is the difference in the total jobs from the previous estimate to the current estimate. And yes, it is absolutely miniscule. The previous jobs estimate for may was 159,577,000. The revised estimate was 159,452,000. That means the new May estimate was 99.92% of the previous estimate. That is indeed a MINISCULE revision of 0.08%. The previous estimate for June was 159,724,000. The revised estimate was 159,466,000. That means the new June estimate was 99.84% of the previous estimate. That is also a MINISCULE revision of 0.16%.

The over-the-month change is not directly estimated. It is a derived number from the actual job total estimates. What if the revision in May was from 1,144,000 to 1,019,000. That would be the exact same statistical revision, only by using your incorrect method of calculations, it would be very small. Because you're making the wrong comparison.

Trust me. I'm a professional statistician who worked on this very program. I know what I am talking about.

[CaptainTruth]

65. Thanks for your explanations!

[Wiz Imp]

66. You're welcome!

[VeryProgressive]

30. Additional Data

They revise the numbers after getting more real-world data. This is fairly common.

[Wiz Imp]

34. Estimates are NOT wrong

Estimates are based on the best information available at the time they are made. That is why they are called ESTIMATES!

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/estimate

estimate
1 of 2
verb
es·​ti·​mate ˈe-stə-ˌmāt
estimated; estimating
Synonyms of estimate
transitive verb

1
a
: to judge tentatively or approximately the value, worth, or significance of
b
: to determine roughly the size, extent, or nature of

2 of 2
noun
es·​ti·​mate ˈe-stə-mət
1
a
: a rough or approximate calculation
b
: a numerical value obtained from a statistical sample and assigned to a population parameter

[Bernardo de La Paz]

58. True, but are good & bad estimates. BLS estimates are GOOD estimates that miss by less than 0.5 pct & 0.1 pct. . . . nt

[Wiz Imp]

61. Right. I just get annoyed when I hear people say something like BLS had to revise the estimates because they were wrong

All estimates are going to have some amount of statistical error. For BLS jobs numbers there's both sampling and non-sampling error. Sampling error comes from the sample not being as representative as it should be. Non-sampling error comes from non-responses, erroneous responses and not fully accurately capturing new businesses.

All that said, the estimates produced are incredibly accurate. Even monthly revisions like were made for May & June are miniscule relative to the size of the data set being estimated (almost 160 million). Final benchmark revisions are rarely greater than 2/10 to 3/10 of one percent.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

57. Bc they are only wrong by less than 0.5 pct. US has about 130-140 million workers

0.5% of 130 million is 650,000. A revision of about 100,000 per month is less than 0.09%.

People are having conniption fits over tiny fractions. People often lack perspective.

[MichMan]

73. I agree that the revisions aren't very meaningful in the overall scope.

Why would these miniscule revisions be so devastating to Trump like the OP states?

[bleedingulcers]

71. Not wrong...

as much as not having all of the data. Some of this stuff trickles in pretty slowly.

But we insist on having new number every month, for the previous month, so they estimate. If we were patient enough to wait for data from two or three months prior, they wouldn't need to revise.

[Hassler]

3. When his new BLS flunky is on the job

When good numbers come out, no one will believe they are that high, and if they are lower, we'll know they are even lower. Nice going, Chumpy, now when will I start getting my prescription money? Fool.

[underpants]

6. On the shortlist of possible replacements

[allegorical oracle]

15. Wondering if he'll hire Alan Weisselberg. He always liked Alan's numbers. nt

[underpants]

4. Top economist warns the U.S. is 'on the precipice of recession'--and it will be hard for the Fed to come to the rescue

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-economist-warns-u-precipice-163523737.html

Indicators from the past week paint an overall picture of an economy on the edge of a downturn, according to Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi. Not only is the labor market weakening, but consumer spending is flat while construction and manufacturing are shrinking, he warned, adding that the Federal Reserve will have a hard time reviving growth with inflation still above its target.


While Trump has claimed without evidence that the jobs data was “rigged” and fired the head of the agency that produces the report, Zandi noted that data often gets big revisions when the economy is at an inflection point, like a recession.

Separate reports also held warning signs. GDP rebounded more robustly than expected in the second quarter, but a metric that strips out the impact of foreign trade and looks instead at final domestic demand indicated slowing.

The personal consumption expenditures report showed core inflation accelerated to 2.8%, further above the Fed’s 2% target, and that consumer spending rose less than expected in June. Fed policymakers have held off on interest rate cuts as they wait to see how much tariffs impact inflation.

[Dr. T]

16. I went with the safe route with my IRA's.

I assumed that Dr. Dumbfuck was going to plunge the U.S., and the whole world, into a bigly recession if not a full-on catastrophic depression.

[underpants]

20. I went almost completely to bonds in Jan-Feb

My cash match has gone up $500 this year.
My 401 Roth is up $2,500 this year.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

59. Stagflation comes from supply shocks like tariff taxes & labour deportations & ('73, '79) oil embargos

Stagflation has arrived.

[Danmel]

5. I work for a state representative

I've seen an increase in calls for assistance with new unemployment claims. There is a noticeable uptick. I told my husband 2 months ago that the job numbers seemed too high. I was correct.

[not fooled]

11. No one wants his sh*tty economy

Congrats again to the 77 million fools who led us to this point.

[ffr]

13. I just hope the 77 million fools feel the pinch of their FAFO actions 100x more than

the rest of us. That only seems fair. If they're unwilling to educate themselves about snake oil salesmen, then they deserve everything coming to them.

[twodogsbarking]

12. The ketchup index is up to an all time high.

[dalton99a]

18. Welcome to Trump's big beautiful stagflation - unemployment goes up AND prices go up

[OldBaldy1701E]

54. Well, to be honest, that happened before the orange gibbon got re-elected.

They decided that they wanted to be Walmart more than they wanted to be what they were.

Because we certainly don't have enough Walmart and Walmart knockoffs in our society.



(I am sure their ROI was a deciding factor. Why be a lifeline to people when you can jump in the cesspool of retail while jacking prices to make up for your lack of a twelfth yacht?)

[chouchou]

19. Thank you Mr. President! I feel Grate!

[Midnight Writer]

21. I heard that employment is up 150000% since Trump took office.

[Ray Bruns]

52. It's true! One billion jobs were created last month alone. They are the bigliest numbers ever!

No one has ever seen such numbers! The numbers came up to me with tears in their eyes saying, “sir, you have the best numbers in the history of mankind!”

[C Moon]

68. I heard that 22 billion Americans found jobs in July.

[Ray Bruns]

69. Bigly!

[kerry-is-my-prez]

22. It's going to be left to investment firms to tell the truth.

There’s not much Trump can do to stop them - they have too much power and money. People will not be investing with people who are not telling the truth and bs’ing them.

[BidenRocks]

23. I'm hoping for a depression.

Let's see chump blame that on Biden!

Want to fix the numbers?

Chump! You're FIRED!

[MichMan]

27. Unemployment, homelessness, poverty and hunger

Who wouldn't wish for that.

[BidenRocks]

28. Another day in chumps America.

The party of pedos is making all those miseries a reality.

[MichMan]

29. Except I'm not hoping for it like you are

[BidenRocks]

31. And the A Bomb was what?

An over reaction?

This would eliminate the MAGA and chumpies.

Economic recovery without chumponomics will be rapid.

There needs to be pain, unfortunately. The cancer is that deep.

Just my old guy opinion.

[Ray Bruns]

56. I'm already depressed.

[calimary]

24. Gee, donny-boy. I guess it's true what we've said about you:

that “everything you touch turns to shit.”

[BoRaGard]

26. republicons claim full responsibility for their FAIL

[Greg_In_SF]

32. Why would we celebrate

downward revised job numbers covering 10 months of Biden's term and only two months of Trump's?

[kerouac2]

33. They will blame Biden anyway

And those who want to believe will believe, as usual.

[Figarosmom]

35. He'll say those losses were all before he took

Office since it's March 2024 - March 2025

[slightlv]

36. He fired half of the government

Workforce and the AI stuff he pushes kills jobs in the private sector. What the track did he think the numbers would say..numnuts!

[Hassler]

37. Time for the former softball player press secretary

To rapid-fire more lies.

[Wiz Imp]

39. There is no way for Goldman Sachs to have any inside information on this.

To be clear, that number is strictly a wild ass guess.

Note also, the number when it is released is just a preliminary projection. It's not an actually revision. The revision, called a benchmark revision will be incorporated into the numbers with release of January data at the beginning of February. The official benchmark revision number is the difference between the current estimate for March 2025 (released with May data) and final universe counts from UI records (the QCEW program). To create a continuous time series between the new (2025) March benchmark level and historical sample-based data from the prior March benchmark level (this refers to the monthly estimates from April 2024 thru February 2025), employment estimates for the months between the most recent March benchmark and the previous year's benchmark are adjusted using a linear "wedge-back" procedure.

https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbmart.htm

Even if the benchmark revision turns at to be as high as 1 million, job growth in 2024 (Joe Biden's final full year in office) would still be over 1.3 million jobs (or over 100,000 jobs per month). So far under Trump, total job growth since January has been less than half a million jobs in 6 months. That's an average of around 80,000 per month, with the monthly average declining rapidly each month this year. And in reality, the benchmark revision for March 2025 will likely be far less than 1 million meaning Biden's job record will look even significantly better than Trump's in comparison.

[Hornedfrog2000]

50. Well,

His company has a pretty good track record with, wild ass guesses, as you say.

[Wiz Imp]

55. Last year Goldman Sachs projected that the preliminary benchmark revision estimate was overstated by 500,000

In reality, it was overstated by only about 200,000. That's not a great guess on their part. In fact, initial 4th quarter QCEW data is now available so we can get an idea of what the revision would be for December. Based strictly on December QCEW numbers, an estimate of the preliminary benchmark revision would be between 350,000 & 400,000.

[D_Master81]

40. Nah

I’m sure the next figures will show a quarter million jobs added in august and Trump will tout we are right back on track and it was a rogue stats lady that was the reason for the bad news. I seriously won’t believe anything coming out of this government because only cult members will be left.

[Torchlight]

42. Mr. trump'll have a tough time spinning this one

Not that I'm happy about bad news tough, it too often seems to trickle down on me. But there is a sense of personal validation in seeing my guesswork spelled out (and typos corrected) in an analysis at the behest of the industry most relevant.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

44. Top analyst says the next 5 years could see 'no growth in workers at all' and sends a warning about the fate of the U.S.

As the U.S. labor market shows clear signs of stalling, one of Wall Street’s leading strategists is sounding a sharp warning: With America’s workforce in a demographic crunch and historic changes in immigration policy underway, it is “quite possible that the next five years will see no growth in workers at all.”

The implications, according to David Kelly, chief global strategist at JPMorgan Asset Management, are profound for the Federal Reserve and for investors—chief among them, the need for exceptional caution before lowering interest rates.

Kelly used his regular “Notes on the Week Ahead” research note to survey the implications—perhaps assess the damage—of Friday’s shocking jobs report, which revised downward job creation in May and June by 258,000 jobs. Furthermore, employers added just 73,000 jobs in July, well below the 110,000 consensus estimate. This left the average monthly increase for the past quarter at a paltry 35,000 jobs. The unemployment rate ticked up to 4.2% in July, as both employment numbers and labor force participation slipped further.

Kelly also highlighted signs of tightness in the labor market, namely the decline in the labor participation rate from 62.65% in July 2024 to 62.22% in July 2025. That translates to almost 1.2 million fewer people ages 16 and over who are working or actively looking for a job.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-analyst-says-next-5-194528362.html

Third analyst to say this. Maybe Krasnov can file another multi-million dollar lawsuit.

[OrlandoDem2]

46. THIS is why they're gerrymandering. They know that the economy is failing.

They know inflation isn’t going down. They know tariffs will cause prices to spike. They know that the Big ugly bill will cause people to lose health insurance so billionaires can buy more yachts and estates.

They know they’re going to get their asses kicked in 2026 so they’re trying to gerrymander themselves into a permanent majority.

We’ve gotta keep our base and flip a bunch of indies. That’s going to happen. If we can get just 10% of the red voters to see how bad the GOP is then they’re going to get walloped next year. They are trying desperately to exert raw power politics to avoid their ass kicking.

[Beartracks]

48. Has Trump always been like this? At Wharton, did he say bad grades were just "teachers out to make him look bad"?

Assuming, of course, he actually went to Wharton.

==============

[aggiesal]

49. No need to worry, this administration will hire 250,000 ICEtopol agents to balance it out. n/t

[-misanthroptimist]

51. Why doesn't Trump just fire the economy?

Problem solved!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

60. He fired his bathroom scale years ago and look what he gained from that. . . . .nt

[Ray Bruns]

53. It's all true. One billion jobs were created last month alone! The numbers are the bigliest in history!

No one has ever seen such numbers! The numbers came up to me with tears in their eyes saying, “sir, you have the best numbers in the history of mankind!”

[Martin68]

62. TACO won't be able to fire himself out of the economic disaster that he has created. It will be slow to develop, but it

will be devastating once it picks up steam. Jobs, prices, savings, and the GDP will all be negatively affected.

[Joe Nation]

70. Correction.... "YOU and I" get more bad economic news.

This is his plan.

[Grins]

72. "the 12-month period through March 2025." Biden was president for 9 of those 12 months

And that’s how it will be spun.

Remember, at the time the fed goal was to slow the economy down.