Was the Real Jobs Revision Negative 818,000 or Negative 915,000?

https://mishtalk.com/economics/was-the-real-jobs-revision-negative-818000-or-negative-915000/

by makaimc • 2 years ago

53 37 2 years ago

mishtalk.com

mrbluecoat• 2 years ago

Newb question: Are revisions of this scale normal for jobs data?

readthenotes1• 2 years ago

It's unusual: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/21/us-job-growth-revised-down-b...

Also unusual is the study pacing of the downward revisions which has been going on during the current administration. I believe I read somewhere that there have been more negative revisions in a row under Biden than any previous president.

People who follow job State and know that the numbers were messed up because the household survey shows quite a different story.

You can also add into the swelter of government data that most of the jobs created since 2019 have gone to foreign-born people. I don't have anything against people not born in America having a job, I just find it suspect that they are driving out American job seekers so handily.

mc32• 2 years ago

The main job of a government is to look after those people who elected it -its constituency. If there is a deficit of job seekers, then by all means, import the labor, but the government should not allow foreign workers to undermine its own constituency. I mean, unless, we get something in return from the foreign governments --I don't mean cheaper clothing or cheaper labor. If we went all the way for that, we'd reach a global equilibrium where everyone would earn $1/hr --I doubt anyone but foreigners earning less than a $1 per hour would want that, but you never know, some people do go against their own self interest.

Rury• 2 years ago

Revisions are normal, although 800k is fairly high. Most of this scale are usually 200k-300k, though in 2019 we had a revision of ~500k.

listenallyall3• 2 years ago

fairly high

Very high. Largest since -824,000 in 2009. "Great recession" and all that.

You can decide for yourself if the initial numbers may have been intentionally over-reported to enable media outlets to publish articles and op-eds about how great the economy is under certain politicians, and then have the "correction" in fine print months later, where very few people will notice.

wakawaka285• 2 years ago

It's been happening for a few years. It's unacceptable yet commonplace. But hey, at least they did revise it!

TradingPlaces2• 2 years ago

The biggest issue is that the model for births/deaths of employers was wrong and over-estimating the number of employers. This accounted for about half the revision.

https://www.atlantafed.org/-/media/documents/research/public...

This also means that the other side of the Jobs Report, the household survey, or CPS, is undercounting employment by ~3 million, but that one never gets revised.

varenc• 2 years ago

Some revisions yes, but this is a big one. This discrepancy is because the initial numbers are determined based on surveys and the later revised numbers use more reliable but more slowly updated IRS reporting. (I believe)

m0llusk• 2 years ago

These numbers are calculated, at least initially, as statistical constructions based on trends. That means that when markets changes abruptly, such as in the most recent months, the actual job numbers fall much farther than predictions.

lispisok• 2 years ago

Some interesting charts https://fred.stlouisfed.org/categories/32444

Red_Leaves_Flyy2• 2 years ago

The massive decline in employment of disabled workers is the most concerning thing I saw.

TradingPlaces2• 2 years ago

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

m348e9122• 2 years ago

You could ask the secretary of commerce, but I suspect she doesn't know.

https://x.com/greg_price11/status/1826378177754935482

coolbreezetft242• 2 years ago

This guys posting history is extremely partisan, it really undermines the message

djohnston• 2 years ago

Do you think the video is a deep fake because you don’t like Republicans?

wakawaka285• 2 years ago

That sir is called an ad hominem. Judge the information, not the messenger.

tiahura• 2 years ago

The sad thing is that she’s one of the smarter ones in the Biden-Harris administration.

Let’s not forget that the Biden-Harris CHAIR of the Council of Economic Advisors doesn’t have the faintest idea of how government borrowing or expansion of the money supply works. https://x.com/findingmoneydoc/status/1786050601236779078?s=4...

underseacables• 2 years ago

Does this give us any indication of the chance of a recession?

amy-petrik-214• 2 years ago

Yes. It indicates there is one. If you review the numbers, it's clear they are cheesing the numbers. It's a bit like national debt. In national debt, if you owe $100 today, you will owe $200 tomorrow, $300 the next day, and so on -- debt accumulates in a cumulative manner.

So for unemployment the plan is to cheese the numbers, to accumulate, in a similar fashion. When Kamala wins, and Trump triggers the riots, they'll have a snatch & power grab and punt all the job losses to the other team. Then, thusly, the employment debt is eliminated.

Was the Real Jobs Revision Negative 818,000 or Negative 915,000?

Related Stories