{apply appropriate emoticon here}

I'm sure BLS will be added to the portfolio of Leavitt or one of her flunkies.

I'm betting on Sydney Sweeney.

In firing the head of the agency that collects employment statistics, the president underscored his tendency to suppress facts he doesn’t like and promote his own version of reality.

Link to tweet

Trump’s Efforts to Control Information Echo an Authoritarian Playbook www.nytimes.com/2025/08/03/u...

— Jane Mayer (@janemayer.bsky.social) 2025-08-03T14:43:25.797Z

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/03/us/politics/trump-bls-jobs-facts.html?unlocked_article_code=1.bU8.uevb.5cZlTEaDzRQn&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare


We can no longer trust any numbers from the trump administration

This woman has no need to step into the gutter with Trump. She'll land on her feet and the only harm will be to the American people.

Why anyone would call this bad, I don't know. It is astounding positive growth!

Monthly changes (in thousands): https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth
May: +19 THOUSAND!!!
June: +14 THOUSAND!!!
July: +73 THOUSAND!!!

July/May = 73/19 = 3.84 fold (that's a 284% increase) in the monthly job growth rate, in JUST 2 MONTHS

end sarc

==================================================
The separate Household Survey's Employed numbers were even worse in the last 3 months, monthly changes in thousands:
(696) 93 (260)
parentheses denote negative numbers
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12000000?output_view=net_1mth

==================================================
The Black unemployment rate (7.2%) is the worst since the pandemic-era October 2021
It was 6.2% in January. Latest (July) : 7.2%. That's quite a climb in just 6 months.
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000006
Didn't Trump ask Black people, during his campaign, "What have you got to lose"?

Many more links: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143505265#post17

statistics. And it's clear, nobody has any clue how the BLS does their jobs and they don't want to know. It's no secret how the numbers are calculated. Their website contains the handbook of methods for each program so absolutely anybody can go in and see how the data is developed. For example, here is a link to the handbook for the CES program (jobs count).

https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/ces/design.htm

A Trump idiot was on Fox this morning and spouted this nonsense:
https://www.axios.com/2025/08/03/trump-jobs-labor-statistics-fired

and on Meet the Press:


The reason for revisions is explained very clearly on BLS' website. BLS surveys employers to get a job count for the week of the 12th each month. In order to report data in a timely manner, that generally gives them at most about 2 weeks to collect as many employers responses as possible while still giving them time to calculate the estimates. Of course, many employers are unable to report their data that quickly so their data is included in the calculation for the revision but not the initial estimate. It's that simple. Why were May and June revised down so much? Because a lot of employers who reported late showed decreases in their employment for those months. The data must be kept confidential so individual employers can't be named, but again, it's a simple explanation. No manipulation. No conspiracy. Straightforward statistics.

You know what hurts the quality of the estimates? Many employers who were randomly selected for the sample refuse to report their data monthly. I can't report specific numbers, but I can say that a large percentage of those employers selected for the sample refuse to report. The sample is drawn to maximize accuracy under the scenario where they get 100% response. Of course they don't get anywhere close to that. And the right wingers who complain about the data are the same ones who refuse to participate. You want better data? Every business organization in the country should demand of their members that they report their data to BLS when they are selected for the survey. And report in as timely a manner as possible. Of course that will never happen....

The data are estimates. The revisions are estimates. BLS doesn't claim the data to be 100% accurate because that would be totally impossible to do unless you required every single employer in the country to report their number of employees every month. Hassett calling the revision "corrections" proves he has no clue about how statistical surveys work. It's really quite pathetic that someone in his position is so ignorant.

One more thing - the ultimate revisions (which are the "benchmark" revisions) have not been "massive" as he alleges. Yes last year was larger than normal but was actually smaller than in 2009 (see chart below). What the chart doesn't show is the final revision for 2024 was far smaller than the initial estimate (I don't feel like looking it up now but it was under 600,000).

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.tn.htm

For example, the confidence interval for the monthly change in total nonfarm
employment from the establishment survey is on the order of plus or minus 136,000.
Suppose the estimate of nonfarm employment increases by 50,000 from one month to
the next. The 90-percent confidence interval on the monthly change would range from
-86,000 to +186,000 (50,000 +/- 136,000). These figures do not mean that the sample
results are off by these magnitudes, but rather that there is about a 90-percent
chance that the true over-the-month change lies within this interval. Since this
range includes values of less than zero, we could not say with confidence that
nonfarm employment had, in fact, increased that month. If, however, the reported
nonfarm employment rise was 250,000, then all of the values within the 90-percent
confidence interval would be greater than zero. In this case, it is likely (at
least a 90-percent chance) that nonfarm employment had, in fact, risen that month.

At an unemployment rate of around 6.0 percent, the 90-percent confidence interval
for the monthly change in unemployment as measured by the household survey is
about +/- 300,000, and for the monthly change in the unemployment rate it is about
+/- 0.2 percentage point.

. . .

The household and establishment surveys are also affected by nonsampling error,
which can occur for many reasons, including the failure to sample a segment of the
population, inability to obtain information for all respondents in the sample,
inability or unwillingness of respondents to provide correct information on a
timely basis, mistakes made by respondents, and errors made in the collection or
processing of the data.

. . .

=======================================================
ETA
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
May was revised down by 125k
June was revised down by 133k

As Wiz Imp points out, both are within the 90% confidence interval for sampling error (136k). And then non-sampling error like late responses to surveys are additional

Simple statistical explanation that doesn't involve manipulating data. It does, however, require some understanding of statistics (of which Trump and everyone in his administration have none).

Biggest Job Revisions Since 2020 Expose Pitfall of Economic Data
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3505898

Checking against private sources sounds smart, but warning: they normally vary a great deal from the BLS numbers.
Also, BLS's big difference in employment statistics between Establishment Survey and Household Survey
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3506135

The sample can be slow to fully pick up the shift from expansion to decline. I think these revisions are a strong sign that we may be on the verge of a recession. That is if we aren't already in one.

"Releases anodyne, professional statement" is more accurate.