5 ms·

I'd love to see the evidence for or against this assertion. If BLS is grossly inaccurate, that'd be a good thing to know. If it's accurate, also good to know. E

I'd love to see the evidence for or against this assertion. If BLS is grossly inaccurate, that'd be a good thing to know. If it's accurate, also good to know. Evidence?

nodesocket 1y ago
We can start with this reading. Average monthly job growth dropped from 147,000 initially to just over 70,000 a reduction of approximately 52% from their data. This at precisely when the Fed needed to start cuts when the administration has been aggressively hammering them. Hopefully the Fed is not too late this time, and their 6+ month delay cutting won't result in a recession or serious economic impact.
- yepitwas 1y ago
  I expect they're correctly hesitant to cut rates at the same time as the president pursues inflationary policies, since that'd be courting stagflation, which was so bad last time it happened that it was one of the main factors that defined our politics for the following three decades.
  - estearum 1y ago
    Yes, as Powell has said pretty explicitly. If not for stupid inflationary policies, probably would've already been in cut territory.
- matwood 1y ago
  The fed was cutting rates and on track to continue until Trump threw a tariff grenade into the economy. They, like most businesses, decided they needed to see how the idiotic economic policy played out before doing anything else.
  - nodesocket 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
      > Literally none of the doom and gloom and TDS rhetoric has materialized. (Looks at labor statistics...) Um, maybe they have.
    - hypeatei 1y ago
      > Literally none of the doom and gloom and TDS rhetoric has materialized How can you say that so soon when PPI and CPI numbers come out this week? The latest PPI report from July showed a 0.9% increase which was surprising. > massive inflow in capital into the coffers a.k.a. higher taxes that US citizens are paying.
    - wredcoll 1y ago
      > For now, massive inflow in capital into the coffers, repatriation from US companies seems like a win. This is just idle curiosity, but what makes you come here and lie about stuff like this?
- blackbear_ 1y ago
  > dropped from 147,000 initially to just over 70,000 That is well within the confidence intervals published along with the numbers and entirely unsurprising to anybody who is really paying attention. > reduction of approximately 52% from their data And of 0.04% of the actual number of employed people. Seems to me way too thin of a margin to get so worked up.
- mempko 1y ago
  You model about what the Fed does and how rates affect the economy is just wrong. The fed raising or lowering rates won't change what's happening with jobs. You have to explain why when the fed raised rates, the market shot up and unemployment dropped. But you can't with the model you have.
ForHackernews 1y ago
He's not the final word on the matter, but Nate Silver writes... > I've worked a lot with data produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other federal agencies. In fact, an economic index based on a half-dozen of these statistics is part of our presidential election forecast, so we’ve pulled this data all the way back to World War II.3 > And I consider it to be of very high quality. When BLS data is revised as more information becomes available, it’s meticulously documented and explained. For more on how this works, including just how difficult the BLS’s job is and how it’s being made harder by declining survey response rates and cuts to federal agencies that track economic activity, I’d strongly recommend this edition of the Odd Lots podcast with Bill Beach, the former BLS commissioner under Trump 1.0 and Biden. It might not be the most riveting interview, but one thing that comes through is just how much of a straight-shooter he is. https://www.natesilver.net/p/trumps-jobs-data-denialism-wont-fool https://www.natesilver.net/p/trumps-jobs-data-denialism-wont...

I'd love to see the evidence for or against this assertion. If BLS is grossly inaccurate, that'd be a good thing to know. If it's accurate, also good to know. Evidence?

nodesocket 1y ago

We can start with this reading. Average monthly job growth dropped from 147,000 initially to just over 70,000 a reduction of approximately 52% from their data. This at precisely when the Fed needed to start cuts when the administration has been aggressively hammering them. Hopefully the Fed is not too late this time, and their 6+ month delay cutting won't result in a recession or serious economic impact.

yepitwas 1y ago
I expect they're correctly hesitant to cut rates at the same time as the president pursues inflationary policies, since that'd be courting stagflation, which was so bad last time it happened that it was one of the main factors that defined our politics for the following three decades.
- estearum 1y ago
  Yes, as Powell has said pretty explicitly. If not for stupid inflationary policies, probably would've already been in cut territory.
matwood 1y ago
The fed was cutting rates and on track to continue until Trump threw a tariff grenade into the economy. They, like most businesses, decided they needed to see how the idiotic economic policy played out before doing anything else.
- nodesocket 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
    > Literally none of the doom and gloom and TDS rhetoric has materialized. (Looks at labor statistics...) Um, maybe they have.
  - hypeatei 1y ago
    > Literally none of the doom and gloom and TDS rhetoric has materialized How can you say that so soon when PPI and CPI numbers come out this week? The latest PPI report from July showed a 0.9% increase which was surprising. > massive inflow in capital into the coffers a.k.a. higher taxes that US citizens are paying.
  - wredcoll 1y ago
    > For now, massive inflow in capital into the coffers, repatriation from US companies seems like a win. This is just idle curiosity, but what makes you come here and lie about stuff like this?
blackbear_ 1y ago
> dropped from 147,000 initially to just over 70,000 That is well within the confidence intervals published along with the numbers and entirely unsurprising to anybody who is really paying attention. > reduction of approximately 52% from their data And of 0.04% of the actual number of employed people. Seems to me way too thin of a margin to get so worked up.
mempko 1y ago
You model about what the Fed does and how rates affect the economy is just wrong. The fed raising or lowering rates won't change what's happening with jobs. You have to explain why when the fed raised rates, the market shot up and unemployment dropped. But you can't with the model you have.

ForHackernews 1y ago

He's not the final word on the matter, but Nate Silver writes... > I've worked a lot with data produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other federal agencies. In fact, an economic index based on a half-dozen of these statistics is part of our presidential election forecast, so we’ve pulled this data all the way back to World War II.3 > And I consider it to be of very high quality. When BLS data is revised as more information becomes available, it’s meticulously documented and explained. For more on how this works, including just how difficult the BLS’s job is and how it’s being made harder by declining survey response rates and cuts to federal agencies that track economic activity, I’d strongly recommend this edition of the Odd Lots podcast with Bill Beach, the former BLS commissioner under Trump 1.0 and Biden. It might not be the most riveting interview, but one thing that comes through is just how much of a straight-shooter he is. https://www.natesilver.net/p/trumps-jobs-data-denialism-wont-fool https://www.natesilver.net/p/trumps-jobs-data-denialism-wont...