General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Employment Numbers Are being Fudged, So Says Jerome Powell
The claim that the numbers are bogus is coming from an extremely reliable source.
The bogus numbers are not even close to the real numbers.
The bogus numbers - 40,000 jobs created per month since April.
The real numbers could be - a loss of 20,000 jobs per month, according to Jerome Powell.
Unfuckingbelievable how evil these people are.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/fed-chair-jerome-powell-says-us-may-be-drastically-overstating-jobs-numbers/ar-AA1S7cFs?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=HCTS&cvid=693a383a3df14270accddc4a6ba9defc&ei=114
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
vapor2
(3,576 posts)to make them look good. AND I think the evil minions are doing shit bypassing trump which explains why he knows little about anything.
gab13by13
(30,957 posts)bragging about his economy?
Wiz Imp
(8,541 posts)imply that they were. God, I wish people here were not as eager to believe bullshit conspiracy theories as MAGA are, but sadly, it's become clear, that too many people here have bought into their own "reality" as well. It's really quite sad.
KS Toronado
(22,701 posts)progree
(12,673 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 11, 2025, 04:50 AM - Edit history (1)
From the OP's link -- the Wall Street Journal article --
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/fed-chair-jerome-powell-says-us-may-be-drastically-overstating-jobs-numbers/ar-AA1S7cFs
Given that figures published so far show that the economy has added about 40,000 jobs a month since April, the real number could be something more like a loss of 20,000 jobs a month, Powell said. We think there’s an overstatement in these numbers,” Powell said. “It’s a complicated, unusual, and difficult situation, where the labor market is also under pressure, where job creation may actually be negative,” Powell said.
. . . Powell’s concern involves a quandary that the Labor Department faces when measuring hiring: how to judge the number of jobs added or destroyed when new businesses are created or close down. Those jobs can’t be surveyed directly because it’s difficult for the government to reach out to brand-new companies or companies no longer in business.
Labor’s data arm, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, must use a statistical model to make a guess. In the past few years, that technique, called the birth-death model—referring to the births and deaths of businesses—has overstated job creation by hundreds of thousands of jobs a year, forcing significant downward revisions later. (("the past few years" -- so this isn't just a Krasnov era thing -progree. Highlighting by progree))
A falling number of timely responses to the labor surveys has increased the scale of a different set of monthly job-stats revisions, required after some companies hand in their payroll numbers late. A yearslong budget crunch and staffing shortages have also weighed on the agency’s capabilities. And, most recently, the extended government shutdown that ended in November set the agency’s work back by more than a month.
============================================
Then there is this from the BLS - Employment Situation Technical Note (it's been this way for more than a decade -- it's not a Krasnov-era revision. A number of years ago it used to be +/- 120,000 instead of +/- 136,000. Somebody with time on their hands could find out at archive.org when it changed)
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.tn.htm
Based on what it says, there is a 90% probability that the Establishment Survey's non-farm employment increase is within +/- 136,000 of the stated number. And a 10% chance that it is off by more than 136,000.
Note, this is just the sampling error. There are other errors besides sampling error.
Correspondingly, again based on sampling error alone, there is a 50% chance that it is within +/- 55,800, and a 50% chance that it is outside that. So, for example for a reported job gain of 100,000, there is a 50% chance that it is between 44,200 and 155,800, and a 50% chance that it is outside that range based on sampling error alone. Note there are errors other than sampling error that add to the uncertainty
====================================
The latest available (thru September) nonfarm payroll jobs averaged only 39k/month over the last 5 months (May thru September),
'Non-farm payrolls: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001?output_view=net_1mth
So for an average month of 39k/month for this period, the 50% sampling error bounds are 39k +/- 55.8k = minus 16.8k to +94.8k. And yet again this is due to sampling error alone. Other errors add to this uncertainty range.
=================================================
Note Powell said the numbers "could be... up to" 60,000 lower and "may actually be negative"
This is not the same thing as asserting that Powell's numbers ARE 60,000 lower and ARE negative.
dalton99a
(91,645 posts)
Xolodno
(7,283 posts)...it was from an independent and non government affiliated consulting firm. They stated since February, we have lost about 1.1 Million jobs.
Naturally, the administration is not going to admit that.
Wiz Imp
(8,541 posts)That was the monthly report from Challenger, Gray & Christmas. That report measures announce corporate layoffs. What the report indicated was that as of October the total number of announced layoffs has exceded 1 million. However, the report does not measure any job gains that may have taken place. It does NOT claim to measure job losses.
What it is useful for is looking at trends. THeir report has shown a greater level of announced layoffs this year than any year since 2009. That's an indication that the job market is weaker than it has been since 2009. What it DOES NOT imply is that there has been a specific lebvel of job losses.
Xolodno
(7,283 posts)The one I read was making a comparison to 2020 during the pandemic. Of course with Yahoo, who knows what you will find. To be realistic, I trust ADP more on this data.
The reason why the government figures exist is so we can have an accurate and agreed definition. But with the mob boss and his underlings, that can't be relied upon anymore. After he's out, think a lot of things will be restated. I just read these various articles as more of a pulse, one or two with other economic indicators saying the opposite, a fluke (but keep it in mind, never know if it might be the start of a new trend). But with all the closures, bankruptcies, layoffs, etc. it seemed to trend the right direction. If it was accurate, I'm not sure if it was, just making a note of it.
Right now, I've got bigger personal problems in life, I'm just wetting my finger and trying to find which way the wind is blowing so I can adjust.
Wiz Imp
(8,541 posts)I assume you saw this.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/layoffs-hit-highest-level-2025-133648974.html
Layoffs hit highest level in 2025 since pandemic: Challenger
THe more complete analysis I saw was this:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/layoff-announcements-just-hit-highest-141826666.html
Layoff announcements just hit the highest level since the pandemic
some excerpts:
Here's the actual report directly from Challenger:
https://www.challengergray.com/blog/challenger-report-71321-job-cuts-on-restructurings-closings-economy/#:~:text=NOVEMBER%20CUTS%20FALL%20FROM%20OCTOBER,companies'%20fiscal%20year%2Dends.
Challenger Report: 71,321 Job Cuts on Restructurings, Closings, Economy
Notice this part of the report that is NEVER reported in the media:
Through November, U.S. employers have announced 497,151 planned hires, down 35% from the 761,954 announced at this point in 2024. It is the lowest year-to-date total since 2010, when 392,033 new hires were planned through November.
To be clear, I am a retired government statistician who worked on the BLS jobs program and I can ssure you that the data so far has been legit. The BLS data is produced by career civil servants and would be impossible to manipulate without it being called out by whistleblowers. So I get angry when I see people say the know for sure Trump is "fudging" the data. I know for certain that is not true. However, that doesn't mean the BLS data is completely accurate. It comes from a relatively small statistical sample and is subject to all kinds of errors associated with statistical samples. But there is a big difference between sampling error (which is unintentional) and manipulation (which is intentional). Any errors in the data so far are completely unintentional.
One final thing - I am not saying that Trump would not TRY to manipulate the data. Pretty much every honest statistician and economist in the world have been concerned about that since the election. However, so far it has not happened, and if/when it does happen, it will be obvious and the statisticans and economists around the world will call it out.
Xolodno
(7,283 posts)In one role I used to send data to the BLS and I have a degree in Economics. In my previous job, I ran the analytics department and sent numbers over to regulators, until the company eliminated the analytics department. And firmly believe those at the BLS are doing the best job they can, just don't trust what comes out of the mouths of the politicians when their lips are sucking on the mob boss posterior.
All I did was make a quick comment on something I read, did I read it correctly? Who knows. Been focused on my mother who is in hospice care right now.
EdmondDantes_
(1,269 posts)It's the BLS and their birth/death of business model and given the numbers from March 2024 to March 2025 dropped almost a million from the initial estimates, that covers a lot of time prior to the Trump administration. Can't really blame him if the same problem happened under Biden too unless it tracks back to a change made in the first Trump administration. Not everything is caused by Trump.
From the article
In the past few years, that technique, called the birth-death model—referring to the births and deaths of businesses—has overstated job creation by hundreds of thousands of jobs a year, forcing significant downward revisions later.
gab13by13
(30,957 posts)How long do we wait for Krasnov's numbers to be revised down?
There is a 60,000 job creation difference per month since April between the reported numbers and Powell's numbers.
That's going to take a lot of correction.
EdmondDantes_
(1,269 posts)They do adjustments at 1 and 3 months and then a final adjustment at the end of the year. Also the number is always an estimate since they don't go to every business one by one. It's taking a subset of businesses and then estimating from that. It's about 121,000 businesses and there's millions of businesses.
Notice how you still put all of the blame on Trump when it was pointed out much of that number happened under Biden. Why would Trump not want that downward revision that he could neatly and accurately say was from the Biden administration and then inaccurately offer that as "proof" they were fudging the numbers? The problem as the article points out is in how the birth/death of businesses are estimated. So that wouldn't get caught in the revisions because it's a formula to estimate, and if there's a flaw in the formula, it will be wrong. That doesn't require it to be a conspiracy because it's been that way for years and could reflect a change in small business volatility or something else.
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-does-the-us-government-gather-the-monthly-jobs-report/
gab13by13
(30,957 posts)my memory is that revisions were predominately upward under Biden's term. Why is that?
EdmondDantes_
(1,269 posts)In 2024 6 months had negative revisions and the overall mean revision was negative.
In 2023 9 months had a negative revision and the overall mean revision was negative.
In 2022 only 5 months has a negative revision, but again the overall mean revision was negative although much lower.
2021 only 1 month had a negative revision although it was large, and the overall mean revision was highly positive.
This isn't related to Trump or Biden or Obama.
progree
(12,673 posts)which was announced in September
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143526633
which includes 9 or 10 months under Biden's term depending on whether or not you include January 2025 in that (I do because Biden was president for 2/3 of the month, and more importantly, the survey that produces the payroll job numbers is conducted in the week that includes the 12th of the month -- that's well before the Inauguration date of January 2025).
They didn't break it down by month, and it's my understanding that they never will. They have some system where they target getting an accurate March 2025 total jobs number, and they don't use a month-by-month changes process to get there. So we will never know how much of the 911,000 revision occurred in the Biden months and how much in tRump's 2 months.
It looks like your link ( https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm ) is just the monthly revisions that occur each month for 2 months, for example a May number is revised in the June report, and again in the July report.
And so it doesn't include the annual revisions like the one that was announced in September and will be finalized (likely with a revision) and made official in February 2026 with the with the publication of the January 2026 Employment Situation news release.
Re: some new posts in the thread -- one may have all kinds of reasons to believe that tRump era numbers are being fudged. But it is FALSE to claim that Powell said the numbers are being fudged (or even implied that), at least based on the WSJ article in the OP (see my #22 ) . But unfortunately some people insist on misleading their fellow progressives.
progree
(12,673 posts)The March 2024 benchmarked, seasonally adjusted employment level for total nonfarm employment is 157,517,000. The not seasonally adjusted benchmarked employment level is 156,612,000.
Compared with the sample-based, seasonally adjusted published estimate for March 2024, total nonfarm employment had a revision of −589,000 or −0.4 percent. The not seasonally adjusted total nonfarm employment estimate was revised by −598,000 or −0.4 percent.
Fiendish Thingy
(21,817 posts)gab13by13
(30,957 posts)the economy isn't doing as well as Krasnov claimed last night, or is the new inflation target 3.0 instead of 2.0?
Mark.b2
(717 posts)Good enough for government work.
I cant imagine going to my VP every month with constant re-statements of numbers like that!
Wiz Imp
(8,541 posts)Mark.b2
(717 posts)but, other than that, yeah, you’re right. I cant be an expert on everything, 
Wiz Imp
(8,541 posts)and thus are subject to several types of error including sampling error. A big reason the data are revised the following month is the time frame for which employers to report their data to be included in the current month's sample is extremely tight. Many employers are unable to report the data whithin that time frame, so their data is not included until the revised estimates. Most times the revisions are not real large, but occasionally, particularly around turning points in the economy, the revisions can become larger because all of the data becomes much more volatile.
Another reason for larger monthly revisions is that the seasonal adjustment process is dynamic which means it factors in all of the data up to the current month. Because of that, the actual revised estimate the following month may be the same as the original estimate, but the reported level could change solely due to the seasonal adjustment changing. I can assure you this is a perfectly normal effect of dynamic seasonal adjustment and typically makes the data more accurate.
Finally, even at their worst, the BLS data are extremely accurate. Last year, the benchmark revision was -589,000 jobs. That may sound like a lot, but in reality represents a revision of less than 0.5%.
Mark.b2
(717 posts)popsdenver
(1,355 posts)we ain't seen nothing yet, just wait until after the first of the year...........Usually UPS, FedEx, Amazon, & every retailer is adding employees for the Holiday season......Many aren't adding employees, but actually have started laying off bunches of employees in what would seem their suspicions that the Holiday sales are gonna be putrid given The Republicans Economy......
tavernier
(14,167 posts)The place was empty. I wondered if I had come in during lunch and all the employees were gone. Usually the line and the wait right before Christmas takes forever. But we have lost our Canadians and our Europeans, so there aren’t that many coming in. Plus, lots of folks mail directly from Amazon and other businesses.
popsdenver
(1,355 posts)when I was mailing some packages, same thing......the postal gal said that their business was way way off this holiday season, something she has never seen before except during Covid.........
IronLionZion
(50,677 posts)I've long been suspecting things are worse than this administration is letting on. The stock market is propped up by inflation and debt. AI is propped up with circular investments and that bubble can pop eventually.
Or MAGA will claim that the Republican Powell is some liberal deep state liar or something. Trump appointed him as chair of the Federal Reserve.
Wiz Imp
(8,541 posts)and just like Trump, you have no idea what you are talking about. Powell did not assert that the data was being "fudged". He believes the estimates are being over-estimated. Completely different. He is not accusing anyone of intentionally changing numbers. He believes that the estimation process (which HAS NOT CHANGED) is not accurately capturing job movements.
For the record, In August 2024, Trump claimed
Of course you don't and they did not manipulate anything. But BLS definitely did overesitmate jobs during 2023 & 2024. However, contrary to what Trump claimed, the numbers wer not manipulated. What Powell said now is the equivalent of saying he believes the job numbers will be revised downward significantly this year as well when the benchmark is applied. Unlike Trump, he is NOT claiming the numbers were manipulated (and they haven't been). Powell is much smarter than to make an idiotic accusation like that. He knows that BLS has continued to produce honest numbers. The fact that the estimation process has not been real accurate lately has nothing to do with "fudging" the numbers.
gab13by13
(30,957 posts)Joe Biden was president for 4 years and according to my memory the BLS numbers corrections mostly had to be corrected upward not downward, but under Krasnov's reigns his corrections mostly have to be corrected downward.
Coincidence takes planning.
Figarosmom
(9,464 posts)Put out by this crew.
C Moon
(13,396 posts)They'll quit, because they know the economy is going to fold and blame the Democratic Party.
Then they'll get back in the mid terms.
Skittles
(169,045 posts)IT'S COMING FROM DONALD FUCKING TRUMP
gab13by13
(30,957 posts)The numbers aren't supposed to be perfect but are supposed to be close.
How many times did the BLS numbers have to be corrected downward for Joe Biden's presidency? I remember the corrections being upward.
How many times did the BLS numbers have to be corrected upward for Krasnov?