How did we get 501,000 fewer jobs than reported by this White House?

[kentuck]

Doesn't that seem like a huge number to be off in one year?

Was the false reporting on purpose or a glitch in the system? I tend to think the former.

Obama's job numbers were already ahead of Trump's, even before this story came out yesterday.

Who were they trying to fool? Did they think no one would ever catch the discrepancies in their numbers?

After a trillion dollar tax cut, this is not good news for those crowing about the "great economy".

[Thomas Hurt]

1. IIRC, they make corrections every month or so...

that is what this was I believe a "better" estimate.

[Wounded Bear]

4. They also make an annual adjustment based on tax statements...

This is a new twist, and it sounds like some companies may have been misreporting something somewhere.

[Hoyt]

2. I doubt the WH had a lot to do with Bureau of Labor Statistics reporting. If it did, why

would the WH allow this revision to be released, now?

There was actually a larger downward revision in 2009.

But, I do agree that whatever the economic results are under trump, it was because of Obama's economic carryover.

[Historic NY]

5. Somebody actually starting do their math homework.

The economy has been sputtering along but there has been a feeling something just wasn't right. Consumer sentiment is down.

[Historic NY]

3. But according to the Carnival Barker its the greatest economy of all time, the greatest.

Who is the Sec. of Labor?

J P Morgan Chase job estimates off 40k a month, really.

So none of these supposed estimates made off these numbers is accurate.

Like over-estimating the value of golf courses.

[Meadowoak]

6. The base heard about the 501,000 new jobs. They will never hear

That the numbers were wrong.

[mathematic]

7. It was not false reporting, propaganda, or a mistake

The employment numbers come from a statistical model. That model is constantly updated with more data to improve the accuracy of the model. That's what happened here. The adjustment was -.3%, which is a higher magnitude than normal but not out of the ordinary. In the past 10 years the biggest magnitudes have been 2009 -.7%, 2010 -3.%, and 2012 .3%.

Also note that the final adjustment made this year for past data was released in march and showed essentially no adjustment necessary (less than .05%). The figure announced yesterday was a preliminary figure for next year's adjustment (which will affect data from 2018 & 2019).

Here's an article from the BLS describing the process:
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2017/article/benchmarking-the-current-employment-statistics-national-estimates.htm

[harumph]

32. Maybe the BOL needs to hire some Quants.

[smirkymonkey]

8. Because President Dipshit just pulls numbers out of his ass and those are the ones that are reported

by the White House. Nobody should ever take them seriously. Anyone who is paying attention knows that the economy isn't great for anybody but the very wealthy. Trump is a third-rate con man. Why anyone believes anything this man says is a mystery to me.

[AncientGeezer]

17. BLS reports.....not the orange dumpster

[Voltaire2]

9. The correction is 0.3%.

And is larger than usual but it is just noise.

[kentuck]

12. How do we get 0.3% ??

500,000 jobs lost would be about 40,000 jobs per month.

If they were to report 280,000 jobs per month and it was really only 240,000 per month, that seems like that would be about 14%?

How do they come up with 0.3%?

[Farmer-Rick]

29. The average number of jobs growth in 2019 per month has been 165,000

40,000 could wipe out a quarter of the job growth. It seems like a larger percent than 0.3%.

[Voltaire2]

31. Of the total labor force.

Which is around 170 million. It is also a preliminary revision. It is the largest readjustment since 2009, but it is not evidence of Hair Shitler messing with the stats, it might signal that there is turmoil in the economy.

[dsc]

33. but that isn't the right base for the percent

the number of jobs would be the correct base.

[Voltaire2]

35. Uh yeah it is. But whatever.

Inventing idiotic conspiracies when there are obvious and overt and real acts of malfeasance almost every day isn’t helpful.

[uponit7771]

13. Biggest adjustment since 2009, not noise

[AncientGeezer]

10. BLS isn't influanced by the dumpster...and the % is statistaclly small

[uponit7771]

14. Biggest adjustment since Republicans great depression

[AncientGeezer]

16. .3%....I hear you... but it's still statistically small.

Please don't forget...Nancy Pelosi was SotH and Harry Reid was Majority Leader in the Senate....and had been since Jan'07....and the Shrub signed everything he could get his hands on

[Claritie Pixie]

11. Do you really have to ask? Nothing coming from this admin is accurate.

[malaise]

15. Simple

LIARS for the Con

[AncientGeezer]

18. What explains the correction from BLS? It's being widely reported.

I call this a good deal...a Federal agency correcting the record..

[malaise]

19. Democracies need an independent bureaucracy

Give thanks

[AncientGeezer]

20. Kind of disputes you claim then....right?

They Didn't lie for the orange dumpster....BLS corrected the record.

[malaise]

21. The original figures were lies

These are corrected figures

[AncientGeezer]

22. FROM the entity that posted the original #'s..right? Not lies...calculation errors.

BLS is Openly publishing the correction....I don't see the down side.
A .3% error is being reported by the agency that made the reporting error...taking ownership of the mistake...what more should they do?

[Farmer-Rick]

30. If 40,000 a month is 0.3% then 13,333,333 a month is the total.

Have we had 13.3 million jobs each month this year?

[Voltaire2]

36. 0.3% of the total labor pool.

Not 0.3% of the total change to that pool.

[Farmer-Rick]

37. Oh yeah, that works out to about 13 million if you divide by 12.

Thanks.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

23. Because the Trump cabal deliberately lied

Only answer I can think of.

[AncientGeezer]

25. BLS isn't a dumpster "cabal"......they are correcting the #'s. That's a good deal

[Mc Mike]

24. Those are the ones Ivanka told dRump she created.

[Kurt V.]

26. nothing fishy here. bls uses strict methodology.

[democratisphere]

27. This administration lied again.

[at140]

28. Job numbers come from Bureau of labor stats, not white house!

and I do not understand how the number was off by half a million.
obviously their models suck.

[customerserviceguy]

34. For expediency

they pull a number out of their ass, and fix it later. This isn't just the Trump administration, they've been doing this for as long as I've been aware of the statistic.