No I don’t believe it was intentional. Obviously.That's Aloha's point. The revision hurts Harris. If BLS was a partisan tool of the Democratic party, they'd bury the revision.
No I don’t believe it was intentional. Obviously.That's Aloha's point. The revision hurts Harris. If BLS was a partisan tool of the Democratic party, they'd bury the revision.
You’re the Purdue fan.This is the dumbest ****ing thread. You people are morons.
The BLS is well know for its nonpartisanship.That's Aloha's point. The revision hurts Harris. If BLS was a partisan tool of the Democratic party, they'd bury the revision.
I’m not paranoid and I didn’t present any conspiracy theory.Even with the revision, the numbers and unemployment rate are good. The initial numbers didn’t need to be higher. It’s just a revision of a very large number of jobs created, so the revision was large too. The constant paranoia and search for conspiracy theories is exhausting. It’s not a good look.
This thread got off to a bad start bc of how it was framed. 3 million jobs were added in 2023. This is nearly a third of that figure for this year. So we’re relying on this in part for fed decisions etc and they are that far off. That’s pathetic.The BLS is well know for its nonpartisanship.
I’ll also point out that a lot of the economist I follow have been claiming they’re overestimating the jobs all year. Somehow the right wingers knew, but the left wingers didn’t. I’m shocked 🙄This thread got off to a bad start bc of how it was framed. 3 million jobs were added in 2023. This is nearly a third of that figure for this year. So we’re relying on this in part for fed decisions etc and they are that far off. That’s pathetic.
And this correction may be overstated by 500,000. Also, the Fed will not use this data to decide on rate cuts, etc. That’s not how they work. No, this entire thread is a train wreckThis thread got off to a bad start bc of how it was framed. 3 million jobs were added in 2023. This is nearly a third of that figure for this year. So we’re relying on this in part for fed decisions etc and they are that far off. That’s pathetic.
the economist you follow. ROFLI’ll also point out that a lot of the economist I follow have been claiming they’re overestimating the jobs all year. Somehow the right wingers knew, but the left wingers didn’t. I’m shocked 🙄
Every president since, well, forever, always crows, “look at all the jobs WE created this past quarter or year.” I’ve wondered exactly what they specifically did to create those jobs.This thread got off to a bad start bc of how it was framed. 3 million jobs were added in 2023. This is nearly a third of that figure for this year. So we’re relying on this in part for fed decisions etc and they are that far off. That’s pathetic.
you're underestimating the importance of the report. to be that far off is absurdAnd this correction may be overstated by 500,000. Also, the Fed will not use this data to decide on rate cuts, etc. That’s not how they work. No, this entire thread is a train wreck
![]()
Goldman Sachs sees 818K downward revision in payroll gains as ‘exaggerated’
The Bureau of Labor Statistics initially revised down its payrolls benchmark by 818K for March 2024, but Goldman Sachs sees the revision as exaggerated. Read more here.seekingalpha.com
They knew a downward adjustment was coming. They’ve known for a long time.you're underestimating the importance of the report. to be that far off is absurd
At the Federal Reserve, one of our main roles is to promote maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. This task requires accurate and timely information about the U.S. economy. Much of the vital economic information we use at the Federal Reserve comes from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
that's a hell of a downward adjustment and certainly belies their own letter counting on the "accurate and timely information about the U.S. economy."They knew a downward adjustment was coming. They’ve known for a long time.
meh.that's a hell of a downward adjustment and certainly belies their own letter counting on the "accurate and timely information about the U.S. economy."
You do know that Stollca can hook you up with some tips to write that off as a business expense, right?Can’t have fat chicks when we’re trying to promote health, now can we?? I’d review their OnlyFans sites before hiring but I hate having to pay for all that “content”
I don’t believe there’s any malicious intent or conspiracy involved. I think that numerous entities make decisions in reliance on those figures, at least in part, and that’s a hell of a miss
“Recruiting fair”, right??You do know that Stollca can hook you up with some tips to write that off as a business expense, right?
How do you know “they” wanted to release the correct numbers?Come on Stoll, they didn't "admit to lying." They issued a revision. If they wanted to lie, they wouldn't have released the revision. Simple as that.
You should track the USDA numbers. Ha.This thread got off to a bad start bc of how it was framed. 3 million jobs were added in 2023. This is nearly a third of that figure for this year. So we’re relying on this in part for fed decisions etc and they are that far off. That’s pathetic.
Really is shocking isn’t it?I’ll also point out that a lot of the economist I follow have been claiming they’re overestimating the jobs all year. Somehow the right wingers knew, but the left wingers didn’t. I’m shocked 🙄
The party of useful idiots.. orange man bad.
It’s their job. I don’t get where you’re going here.How do you know “they” wanted to release the correct numbers?
Yep. Good enough for government though.Really is shocking isn’t it?
I appreciate you contributing time and energy schooling this propagandist.To answer your question, because bad news has a hard time catching up to good news, especially when the MSM highlights the original good news, and not the corrections? Have not the estimates for the last year or so been generally more positive than the corrections?
good lord. why bother?Yes. They're wrong 10 out of 10 years, and always to the same side.
Not this again. You remember our previous discussions on military procurement where I had to correct you that the Marine Corps no longer uses tanks?What experience do you have? None?
If you have no experience with government workers you don’t know what you’re talking about.Not this again. You remember our previous discussions on military procurement where I had to correct you that the Marine Corps no longer uses tanks?
Credentials and supposed experience do not impress me.
If you work for the FBI or CIA you obviously feel there is some use in a state run, centralized intelligence or law enforcement body. As a matter of self preservation you believe in keeping the federal government the same size or expanding it (or at least your little corner of the federal government).
People that depend on maintaining or growing the size of the federal government for their livlihood are not Conservative. At least not definitionally.
“The federal government needs to cut spending, but not MEEEEE”
Grow up Peter Pan. Count Chocula.
So wait - all this crowing by Kamala about how many jobs were created was all BS?To answer your question, because bad news has a hard time catching up to good news, especially when the MSM highlights the original good news, and not the corrections? Have not the estimates for the last year or so been generally more positive than the corrections?
The correction is not broadly publicized. Come on - you know that.That's Aloha's point. The revision hurts Harris. If BLS was a partisan tool of the Democratic party, they'd bury the revision.
Yet we all know about it, Bozo.The correction is not broadly publicized. Come on - you know that.
You don’t have a clue what is going on, do you? I asked you before because you’re old and post total nonsense regularly, do you have dementia? I’ll leave you to post your nonsense without comment if that’s the case.I appreciate you contributing time and energy schooling this propagandist.
Says the guy that been on the government tit his whole life!You don’t have a clue what is going on, do you? I asked you before because you’re old and post total nonsense regularly, do you have dementia? I’ll leave you to post your nonsense without comment if that’s the case.
I haven’t been paid by the taxpayers for my job since I retired from the Navy in 2012, dipstick. You have a problem with military service? I suspect you were too weak, stupid or cowardly to do it. Probably all three.Says the guy that been on the government tit his whole life!
Bone spurs (or maybe bunions).I haven’t been paid by the taxpayers for my job since I retired from the Navy in 2012, dipstick. You have a problem with military service? I suspect you were too weak, stupid or cowardly to do it. Probably all three.
I have plenty of experience with government workers. Ever been to a DMV? Been through TSA?If you have no experience with government workers you don’t know what you’re talking about.
You were right that the Matines phased out the use of tanks, but that hardly makes you a military expert.
Your lack of credentials and expertise certainly don’t impress anyone. Definitely not me.
Remember, Government is their God.I have plenty of experience with government workers. Ever been to a DMV? Been through TSA?
That's what the FBI and CIA are with fancier offices.