Last edited Sat Sep 20, 2025, 07:10 PM - Edit history (1)

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is not located in the Frances Perkins Building.

It gets moved around all the time. From 1992 to 2024, it was located in the Postal Square Building, which was really nice inside. I now learn that it has moved again, this time to Silver Hill Road in Suitland MD. I had not known that.

And good morning.

(which is located directly across the street from Union Station) between 1992 & 2020 while I was working as a Statistician for my state. BLS had started planning the move to Maryland shortly before the pandemic hit, then the pandemic delayed the new building being ready (they were supposed to move in 2022). I believe they finally moved late last year.

The France Perkins Building is where much of the other agencies within the Department of Labor are located.

Archive copy for those who don't want to give their email to Axios Macro in order to read the article:
https://archive.is/l25SR#selection-603.0-627.136

Various excerpts---

For the average to be under half when you exclude the top 1,000, those top 1,000 must have an income of over half of the entire country. But the top 1% of the US (ie the top 3 million or so) has about 20% of the income: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/income-share-top-1-before-tax-wid

It's possible the figures in the graphic are something like the reality for wealth rather than income - that is much more uneven, and a lot of people have almost no, or even negative (ie they owe more than they own) wealth.

.....enough that when the median and average $ balances are published, there's a wide gap. A gapingly huge wide gap. This $ pay number is pretty close to the average. Plus, you have to think how many of these people have zero child-care, medical, dental, eyecare, and vacation time. My Union job also had mental and legal benefits. Job protections too. It's a representative number that reflects how pathetic the "American Dream" is. You can quibble over a few thousand dollars. The question for me is why?

You appear to be talking about wealth, since you're using number for account balances. But then you try and mix income in again, when you say "This $ pay number is pretty close to the average". And then you mention job benefits - which you can roughly equate with pay, being a "rate" - per month/year etc.. But not comparable to wealth or account valuation.

Pay and retirement accounts are completely different. I don't see what the "quibble over a few thousand dollars" is. Are you saying the image in #4 is "quibbling" about the difference between $74,500 and $35,500? That's the "difference" that we've talked about in the thread so far.

Hello? The average Americans are making diddly squat. Why are you debating me? You aren't informing me about anything. I don't need a back and forth with you. Please just block me.

I think I am informing you of something - when using numbers, you need to keep wealth (a total figure) and income (a rate) separate.

But income is the main pathway to wealth. Can we somewhat agree on that?

in the US, and also in the world in general. It's typically not so bad in countries with better welfare states and more progressive taxation systems.

as well as deferred earnings, etc. aren't easily handled by the definition of wealth.

The system is rigged against the wage earners.

Childcare costs alone are crazy.

... so the rest of us are worse off than we think. Why are we giving them an even bigger tax cut?

Link to tweet

Of course, Fux News has their own methods.

Haul the Labor Secretary before Congress no later than Wednesday to explain.

BLS will no longer be viewed as a source of reliable information on the economy. This is what sabotage looks like.

Not sooner.

Translation: We haven't finished manipulating the results yet.

If the report was favorable to the Trump administration, it would have been released on time. So, more time is needed to "fix" that problem.

it to say.

They are overwhelmingly honest and would never agree to manipulate numbers. I know these folks and to a person, they have said they would resign before manipulating the data. The people who might manipulate numbers are the Secretary of Labor and other high level department officials appointed by Trump.

Understand, however, that it will be difficult for them to do that, as I suspect numerous career statisticians would become whistleblowers and let the public know that the numbers are fake. Because of that, it remains far more likely that the administration will simply not publish data they find problematic rather than try to fake it. It appears that may be what is happening here. Note the pending nominee for Commissioner has already floated the idea of stopping monthly jobs reports.

For now, the Acting Commissioner is Bill Wiatrowski, a career BLS employee who has worked there for over 30 years and served as Acting Commissioner under both Republican and Democratic administrations. He is a good man, and he will never go along with faking data - so as long as he remains Acting Commissioner, the data should remain trustworthy.