Quote:

---

US job growth in the year through March was likely far less robust than initially estimated, which risks fueling concerns that the Federal Reserve is falling further behind the curve to lower interest rates.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co. economists expect the government's preliminary benchmark revisions on Wednesday to show payrolls growth in the year through March was at least 600,000 weaker than currently estimated about 50,000 a month.

While JPMorgan Chase & Co. forecasters see a decline of about 360,000, Goldman Sachs indicates it could be as large as a million.

There are a number of caveats in the preliminary figure, but a downward revision to employment of more than 501,000 would be the largest in 15 years and suggest the labor market has been cooling for longer and perhaps more so than originally thought. The final numbers are due early next year.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fed-confronts-million-us-jobs-100000224.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0BWGfQeSiqE5tVeu-3kqf_rC2oOcdF04jP6HpnjFy6R7Rjj1EeropYxnZCl-JpnQQamBBBK8auu52SpyAils-GM1rcbg5eA2a6j1OlZ5sYbAUAsP4hrCCqKpMe3NxNGmumqCX34FNKvYiG_75l8fmqKdJv1AlV6YmlzKOatQ

---

[url=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fed-confronts-million-us-jobs-100000224.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0BWGfQeSiqE5tVeu-3kqf_rC2oOcdF04jP6HpnjFy6R7Rjj1EeropYxnZCl-JpnQQamBBBK8auu52SpyAils-GM1rcbg5eA2a6j1OlZ5sYbAUAsP4hrCCqKpMe3NxNGmumqCX34FNKvYiG_75l8fmqKdJv1AlV6YmlzKOatQiq][/url]

oh you mean the Biden Harris liars were lying about the economy as well?

who could have seen that one coming?!

Mount Rushmore.

Give it to him.

Why is it always the same story, several months later they have to dramatically downsize the reported gains (jobs, growth, etc...)?

Why is there not some type of severe penalty for whoever is authoritative for these reports?

Have we ever seen a dramatic revision UP?

No, we haven't. Just sayin'

That's a weird way to admit that the whole thing was just a big lie.

When democrats are in power, the bureaucrats always come in hot and then quietly revise down

When republicans are in power, the bureaucrats always come in cold and then quietly revise up

This is part of the "deep state" in action, right before your eyes. Yet we will do nothing

Who knew electing a reject from the 1970s would bring us back to 1970s conditions?

This.

This is the type of issue Trump needs to hammer away at Harris with. Forget the cute nicknames and race nonsense. Focus on the damn economy and crap job numbers.

As the Ragin Cajun said in 92', "It's the economy, stupid."

we have been in a recession for at least a year. all of theee numbers are total BS. everyone knows it and yet decisions are made off if this BS information. how much more evidence do u need this is all a scam. the market and everything else.

flakrat said:

---

Why is it always the same story, several months later they have to dramatically downsize the reported gains (jobs, growth, etc...)?

Why is there not some type of severe penalty for whoever is authoritative for these reports?

---

Because they learned long ago that people only pay attention to the announcement, and almost never pay attention to the retraction.

All administrations do this with employment numbers. The government usually reports the U3 number when the U6 number gives a more accurate picture of employment in this country. Most Americans do not care enough to pay attention.

jagvocate said:

---

When democrats are in power, the bureaucrats always come in hot and then quietly revise down

When republicans are in power, the bureaucrats always come in cold and then quietly revise up

This is part of the "deep state" in action, right before your eyes. Yet we will do nothing

---

You could just look up the data yourself to see if what you're saying is true or not.
https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm#2017

flakrat said:

---

Why is it always the same story, several months later they have to dramatically downsize the reported gains (jobs, growth, etc...)?

Why is there not some type of severe penalty for whoever is authoritative for these reports?

---

Because the initial number reported is based on a survey of roughly 500,000 employers across the country. Naturally, survey data is going to have some error level built into it. As more data is added from unemployment claims and the like, the numbers get revised.

HTownAg98 said:

---

flakrat said:

---

Why is it always the same story, several months later they have to dramatically downsize the reported gains (jobs, growth, etc...)?

Why is there not some type of severe penalty for whoever is authoritative for these reports?

---

Because the initial number reported is based on a survey of roughly 500,000 employers across the country. Naturally, survey data is going to have some error level built into it. As more data is added from unemployment claims and the like, the numbers get revised.

---

That would explain a couple thousand jobs here and there and sometimes those numbers are above the mean and others below the mean.

Missing out on 100s of thousands is incompetence and/or deceit.

Will be interesting to see market reaction.
It's said and widely accepted that markets are very forward looking and often by the time news is announced the reaction to the news is already baked into the price. You can tell when something truly surprises Wall Street because the reaction is often swift and potentially even a bit on the extreme side.

Did the markets believe the numbers when they were published? Or will these revisions cause movement to the downside?

This adjustment is at least one, maybe two, order(s) of magnitude to the original rounding in the published numbers.

Ghost Mech said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

flakrat said:

---

Why is it always the same story, several months later they have to dramatically downsize the reported gains (jobs, growth, etc...)?

Why is there not some type of severe penalty for whoever is authoritative for these reports?

---

Because the initial number reported is based on a survey of roughly 500,000 employers across the country. Naturally, survey data is going to have some error level built into it. As more data is added from unemployment claims and the like, the numbers get revised.

---

That would explain a couple thousand jobs here and there and sometimes those numbers are above the mean and others below the mean.

Missing out on 100s of thousands is incompetence and/or deceit.

---

There's more to this number. Most of the difference is driven by the birth death model in the business creation cycle. This isn't people birth, people death...this is businesses closing and opening. The government imputes a certain amount of job creation or destruction based on the number of companies that open or close.

One of the LARGE issues in the gap this time around is the fact the government can't get out of it's own way. The IRS changed the 1099 reporting threshold to such a low number that basically anybody with a side job was being reported as 1099-NEC. The BLS turns around and sees huge number in company creation via the 1099 rules and imputes that thousands of jobs have been created by all of these new "companies."

Ultimately, that's just a part of what will be revised down. The jobs revisions are only the start. Those pretend jobs that the government made up also have pretend spending and pretend income that drive GDP changes. If you just swipe 1MM jobs out of the market, there are going to be meaningful impacts to imputed GDI and GDP.

This is one of the few metrics where companies are required to report on a quarterly basis. There's no fudging the reported numbers so now all of the imputed stats are going to have to catch up. The market reacted so grumpily to this because the revision is going to necessarily drive further revisions to other market moving metrics.

They told us everything was all peachy last night, plus saving democracy as well!

Something, something, "shout the lie, whisper the truth"...

Every. Liberal. Lies.

If you consider that the job gains in the initial report was primarily government jobs, this revision shows that the private sector economy is really bad.

jagvocate said:

---

When democrats are in power, the bureaucrats always come in hot and then quietly revise down

When republicans are in power, the bureaucrats always come in cold and then quietly revise up

This is part of the "deep state" in action, right before your eyes. Yet we will do nothing

---

I do think this happens.

There should be a rule. If your committee's estimate is revised in the same direction in multiple months or qtrs consecutive then you should be replaced w a new set of analysts

Had to dig into the article to really grok what is happening here...

Quote:

---

Once a year, the BLS benchmarks the March payrolls level to a more accurate but less timely data source called the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, which is based on state unemployment insurance tax records and covers nearly all US jobs. The release of the latest QCEW report in June already hinted at weaker payroll gains last year.

As it stands now, the BLS data show the economy added 2.9 million jobs in the 12 months through March 2024, or an average of 242,000 per month. Even if the total revision is as high as a million, monthly job gains would average around 158,000 still a healthy pace of hiring but a moderation from the post-pandemic peak.

---

So, the BLS estimated, for the 12 month period ending March '24, that the economy added 2.9M jobs. And here we are in August '24 and we're just now understanding the numbers are significantly off? In the era of big data, how is it possible that it takes that long to figure that out? And how is that estimate not updated monthly based on actuals? What is this, 1970? God Lord.

dmart90 said:

---

Had to dig into the article to really grok what is happening here...

Quote:

---

Once a year, the BLS benchmarks the March payrolls level to a more accurate but less timely data source called the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, which is based on state unemployment insurance tax records and covers nearly all US jobs. The release of the latest QCEW report in June already hinted at weaker payroll gains last year.

As it stands now, the BLS data show the economy added 2.9 million jobs in the 12 months through March 2024, or an average of 242,000 per month. Even if the total revision is as high as a million, monthly job gains would average around 158,000 still a healthy pace of hiring but a moderation from the post-pandemic peak.

---

So, the BLS estimated, for the 12 month period ending March '24, that the economy added 2.9M jobs. And here we are in August '24 and we're just now understanding the numbers are significantly off? In the era of big data, how is it possible that it takes that long to figure that out? And how is that estimate not updated monthly based on actuals? What is this, 1970? God Lord.

---

PHD's with their models. It took the NBER a full year to determine the 2008 recession had actually happened.

To Powell's credit, he has stated that he looks at alternative jobs/inflation related data and almost explicitly has said the BLS jobs numbers are and have been overstated.

This is the same BLs that reported one of the largest drops in unemployment rates between the 1st and 2nd Obama-Romney debates? Yeah, I'm sure they are completely apolitical

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/obama-uses-positive-jobs-report-make-case-against-romney-flna1c6302063

Quote:

---

Most significantly, the unemployment rate fell from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent last month -- the lowest point since Obama first took office.

The new economic data was welcome news for Obama, whose performance in Wednesday's presidential debate prompted hand-wringing from Democrats, who said the president wasn't aggressive enough versus Romney. Friday's data offered Obama an opportunity to play offense on the issue of the economy, the No. 1 issue in the election and a topic on which he often plays defense versus Romney

---

Impeccable timing.

Asked in the other thread, but what does this affect now, number wise/average wise?

Will the unemployment % go up because of this revision? If not, how not?

also just to throw in, all jobs gained have went to illegals

dmart90 said:

---

Had to dig into the article to really grok what is happening here...

Quote:

---

Once a year, the BLS benchmarks the March payrolls level to a more accurate but less timely data source called the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, which is based on state unemployment insurance tax records and covers nearly all US jobs. The release of the latest QCEW report in June already hinted at weaker payroll gains last year.

As it stands now, the BLS data show the economy added 2.9 million jobs in the 12 months through March 2024, or an average of 242,000 per month. Even if the total revision is as high as a million, monthly job gains would average around 158,000 still a healthy pace of hiring but a moderation from the post-pandemic peak.

---

So, the BLS estimated, for the 12 month period ending March '24, that the economy added 2.9M jobs. And here we are in August '24 and we're just now understanding the numbers are significantly off? In the era of big data, how is it possible that it takes that long to figure that out? And how is that estimate not updated monthly based on actuals? What is this, 1970? God Lord.

---

Some of the data that gets imported into the model only comes out quarterly. Also, these numbers are revised three times before the final number is known.

You expect our government to have up-to-date systems for reporting data? Do I have some news for you, and it's going to make you very, very sad.

LMCane said:

---

oh you mean the Biden Harris liars were lying about the economy as well?

who could have seen that one coming?!

---

The administration....ANY administration....doesn't count the jobs. The CBO does that, and it's independent of any administration. That's just a fact.

Opalka said:

---

LMCane said:

---

oh you mean the Biden Harris liars were lying about the economy as well?

who could have seen that one coming?!

---

The administration....ANY administration....doesn't count the jobs. The CBO does that, and it's independent of any administration. That's just a fact.

---

Remember when the CBO revised their estimates of Obamacare after the head was summoned to the White House? Yeah, I remember.

2023NCAggies said:

---

Asked in the other thread, but what does this affect now, number wise/average wise?

Will the unemployment % go up because of this revision? If not, how not?

also just to throw in, all jobs gained have went to illegals

---

The changes will impact the number of jobs created, and it will be going down sharply.

Unemployment is done with a separate survey. So no, that number doesn't change.

You should have kept that last statement to yourself, as it's a word casserole of nonsense.

Opalka said:

---

LMCane said:

---

oh you mean the Biden Harris liars were lying about the economy as well?

who could have seen that one coming?!

---

The administration....ANY administration....doesn't count the jobs. The CBO does that, and it's independent of any administration. That's just a fact.

---

Nah, sorry, BLS is in the Department of Labor...executive branch.

The CBO has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Guys, jobs numbers are ALWAYS revised. It's because the initial numbers are simply estimates based on labor department surveys that we know are inaccurate. The initial numbers generally only tell you a direction. It's like a quick glance at the cookie jar to guess if there are 40 cookies or 10. Only when you have the time to count them do you realize it's actually 17.

They aren't revised down by 34%.

aalan94 said:

---

Guys, jobs numbers are ALWAYS revised. It's because the initial numbers are simply estimates based on labor department surveys that we know are inaccurate. The initial numbers generally only tell you a direction. It's like a quick glance at the cookie jar to guess if there are 40 cookies or 10. Only when you have the time to count them do you realize it's actually 17.

---

People have been pointing our for a year how bogus the jobs reports have been, with native born employment still below levels from when Trump was in office, mass layoffs in the tech sector, but foreign born taking all of the "jobs", the majority of which are government, part time, or second jobs.

If jobs get revised down by 1M, that's not just an "aw shucks, we did our best to estimate and were wrong". That's proof that there was never an attempt to quantify what people with two eyes can clearly see.

jagvocate said:

---

When democrats are in power, the bureaucrats always come in hot and then quietly revise down

When republicans are in power, the bureaucrats always come in cold and then quietly revise up

This is part of the "deep state" in action, right before your eyes. Yet we will do nothing

---

The largest revision down in decades came in 2019. You might remember Trump was president then.
Source