TTUArmy said:
Thinking out loud here...
This woman, perhaps unwittingly, did Trump and Powell a bit of a favor. Trump has been badgering Powell to drop interest rates. Powell has a fairly compelling reason to drop them now.
Quote:
The US services sector effectively stagnated in July as firms faced with tepid demand and rising costs reduced headcount.
The Institute for Supply Management's index of services declined last month to 50.1, below all estimates in a Bloomberg survey of economists. Readings above 50 indicate expansion.
The employment index dropped to 46.4, contracting for the fourth time in five months and marking one of the lowest readings since the pandemic. The group's measure of prices paid for materials and services, meanwhile, climbed to the highest since October 2022.
The data, released Tuesday, paint a picture of a sluggish service economy wrestling with the fallout of higher tariffs, cautious consumers and uncertainty stemming from President Donald Trump's policies.
Aggie_Journalist said:
No. It's not. She was appointed with wide bipartisan support because both parties thought she was a straight shooter who did a good job. Marco Rubio voted for her.
Firing her is partisan. And nobody will be able to trust economic data from this administration again.
Job number adjustments are normal. If you think she's such a partisan hack, why not report bad numbers initially? Why wait until you get more data to "rig" it? If you are honest with yourself, you can see that Trump's rationale is bullcrap and he's really just trying to hide the truth from you - and the truth is he is crashing the economy.
AgGrad99 said:
We laughed for four years when they'd revise the numbers after the fact, without fail, and now that it's been stopped....'not okay with it'.
K
Dan Carlin said:
With the firing of a career economist heading the department of labor statistics, the precedent is now set to dismiss government officials for simply reporting data that runs contrary to the President's agenda. Anyone else not okay with this happening?
BusterAg said:
Did she do a good job?
BusterAg said:
No one has told me yet why she was so good at her job. Or that she was bad at her job.
No one has offered any analysis or defense of her projections.
So, I have no way of forming an opinion about whether or not the firing was politically motivated.
On the one hand, the numbers were bad for Trump. Had the revised numbers been reported originally, we would likely have a lower interest rate right now.
On the other hand, I have no way of measuring how objective the director was or was not.
What information led to the original forecast? Was it simply cut and paste? If so, why do so many people report to her?
If there is any amount of discretion at all used, why didn't she report numbers lower originally? I think that every poster in F16 knew that the employment numbers were baked, and that unemployment was higher than being reported. How come the Director didn't know?
With the information we have, anyone speculating whether or not this firing was political is just that, a speculation.
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:BusterAg said:
No one has told me yet why she was so good at her job. Or that she was bad at her job.
No one has offered any analysis or defense of her projections.
So, I have no way of forming an opinion about whether or not the firing was politically motivated.
On the one hand, the numbers were bad for Trump. Had the revised numbers been reported originally, we would likely have a lower interest rate right now.
On the other hand, I have no way of measuring how objective the director was or was not.
What information led to the original forecast? Was it simply cut and paste? If so, why do so many people report to her?
If there is any amount of discretion at all used, why didn't she report numbers lower originally? I think that every poster in F16 knew that the employment numbers were baked, and that unemployment was higher than being reported. How come the Director didn't know?
With the information we have, anyone speculating whether or not this firing was political is just that, a speculation.
Most on here can't explain why the numbers have to be revised or even how the numbers are calculated. Or even know that the numbers released are provisional.
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:BusterAg said:
No one has told me yet why she was so good at her job. Or that she was bad at her job.
No one has offered any analysis or defense of her projections.
So, I have no way of forming an opinion about whether or not the firing was politically motivated.
On the one hand, the numbers were bad for Trump. Had the revised numbers been reported originally, we would likely have a lower interest rate right now.
On the other hand, I have no way of measuring how objective the director was or was not.
What information led to the original forecast? Was it simply cut and paste? If so, why do so many people report to her?
If there is any amount of discretion at all used, why didn't she report numbers lower originally? I think that every poster in F16 knew that the employment numbers were baked, and that unemployment was higher than being reported. How come the Director didn't know?
With the information we have, anyone speculating whether or not this firing was political is just that, a speculation.
Most on here can't explain why the numbers have to be revised or even how the numbers are calculated. Or even know that the numbers released are provisional.
Dirty_Mike&the_boys said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:BusterAg said:
No one has told me yet why she was so good at her job. Or that she was bad at her job.
No one has offered any analysis or defense of her projections.
So, I have no way of forming an opinion about whether or not the firing was politically motivated.
On the one hand, the numbers were bad for Trump. Had the revised numbers been reported originally, we would likely have a lower interest rate right now.
On the other hand, I have no way of measuring how objective the director was or was not.
What information led to the original forecast? Was it simply cut and paste? If so, why do so many people report to her?
If there is any amount of discretion at all used, why didn't she report numbers lower originally? I think that every poster in F16 knew that the employment numbers were baked, and that unemployment was higher than being reported. How come the Director didn't know?
With the information we have, anyone speculating whether or not this firing was political is just that, a speculation.
Most on here can't explain why the numbers have to be revised or even how the numbers are calculated. Or even know that the numbers released are provisional.
Please supply everyone with a link to the BLS report disclaimer that says they are "provisional numbers" and the advisory warning that these numbers are just a wild guess and will be adjusted two months down the road every time since she's been in office. Being off a few thousand or even tens of thousands but 1.7 million? Sorry you're fired and should be banned for life of every claiming to be a.statistician.
Quote:
QCEW data are regularly updated after their initial release and are not considered final until the end of the first quarter of the next reference year. Once data are final, they are not edited. If errors are found in publications after particular data are released, a corrected version of the data is released along with a note on what was changed (See "Data Correction" on this page). These notes can also be found in the "QCEW Notices" section of the program web page.
Quote:
Revisions
QCEW data for the first quarter of each year are published five times. The original data are first released in September of that year, and are followed by revisions in December of the same year and in March, June, and September of the next year. For example, March 2025 data are first published in September 2025, and revisions of the March 2025 data are published in December 2025 and then in March, June, and September 2026. Second-quarter data are published four times, third-quarter data three times, and fourth-quarter data twice.
The most current information about QCEW revisions can be found at Overview of QCEW Revisions, including historical revisions data back to 2017. For a detailed example of revisions in a recent production year, table 5 in the design section of this handbook shows the path of data for March 2022 from their initial publication in August 2022 to their final publication in August 2023. The initial published value of March 2022 employment is 147,648,359 jobs as seen in the first column. In the same row, the four subsequent columns are the revised values of March 2022 employment in each of the subsequent four quarters. In the next four columns, the difference between the current published value and the value of the previous quarter's published value is shown. The final column shows the difference between the original published value and the final value published 1 year later. As shown in table 6 in the design section of this handbook, the largest revision generally occurs from initial publication to the first revision, as missing reports, including reports of business deaths.4 Revisions occur due to employers responding late.5 The magnitude of the revisions is relatively small, less than 0.15 percentage points. Table 7 in the design section of this handbook shows the percentage of revision from the original value to the final publication value.
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Dirty_Mike&the_boys said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:BusterAg said:
No one has told me yet why she was so good at her job. Or that she was bad at her job.
No one has offered any analysis or defense of her projections.
So, I have no way of forming an opinion about whether or not the firing was politically motivated.
On the one hand, the numbers were bad for Trump. Had the revised numbers been reported originally, we would likely have a lower interest rate right now.
On the other hand, I have no way of measuring how objective the director was or was not.
What information led to the original forecast? Was it simply cut and paste? If so, why do so many people report to her?
If there is any amount of discretion at all used, why didn't she report numbers lower originally? I think that every poster in F16 knew that the employment numbers were baked, and that unemployment was higher than being reported. How come the Director didn't know?
With the information we have, anyone speculating whether or not this firing was political is just that, a speculation.
Most on here can't explain why the numbers have to be revised or even how the numbers are calculated. Or even know that the numbers released are provisional.
Please supply everyone with a link to the BLS report disclaimer that says they are "provisional numbers" and the advisory warning that these numbers are just a wild guess and will be adjusted two months down the road every time since she's been in office. Being off a few thousand or even tens of thousands but 1.7 million? Sorry you're fired and should be banned for life of every claiming to be a.statistician.
Is this what you are asking for?
BLS MethodsQuote:
QCEW data are regularly updated after their initial release and are not considered final until the end of the first quarter of the next reference year. Once data are final, they are not edited. If errors are found in publications after particular data are released, a corrected version of the data is released along with a note on what was changed (See "Data Correction" on this page). These notes can also be found in the "QCEW Notices" section of the program web page.Quote:
Revisions
QCEW data for the first quarter of each year are published five times. The original data are first released in September of that year, and are followed by revisions in December of the same year and in March, June, and September of the next year. For example, March 2025 data are first published in September 2025, and revisions of the March 2025 data are published in December 2025 and then in March, June, and September 2026. Second-quarter data are published four times, third-quarter data three times, and fourth-quarter data twice.
The most current information about QCEW revisions can be found at Overview of QCEW Revisions, including historical revisions data back to 2017. For a detailed example of revisions in a recent production year, table 5 in the design section of this handbook shows the path of data for March 2022 from their initial publication in August 2022 to their final publication in August 2023. The initial published value of March 2022 employment is 147,648,359 jobs as seen in the first column. In the same row, the four subsequent columns are the revised values of March 2022 employment in each of the subsequent four quarters. In the next four columns, the difference between the current published value and the value of the previous quarter's published value is shown. The final column shows the difference between the original published value and the final value published 1 year later. As shown in table 6 in the design section of this handbook, the largest revision generally occurs from initial publication to the first revision, as missing reports, including reports of business deaths.4 Revisions occur due to employers responding late.5 The magnitude of the revisions is relatively small, less than 0.15 percentage points. Table 7 in the design section of this handbook shows the percentage of revision from the original value to the final publication value.
flown-the-coop said:
The "data is what the data is" is incorrect. There are varying methodologies that can be used, various sources of data that can be included or excluded based on a variety of different factors AND decisions by the black box data team about how the numbers are "massaged" before being delivered to the "messenger" 24 yours before they inform the most important person on earth how the jobs numbers look.
See my comparison to the accounting dept and controller above.
Even your quoted and bolder area for revisions indicates revisions are expected be less than 0.15%, which I haven't run the numbers but I think the May and June revisions were above that target %.
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:flown-the-coop said:
The "data is what the data is" is incorrect. There are varying methodologies that can be used, various sources of data that can be included or excluded based on a variety of different factors AND decisions by the black box data team about how the numbers are "massaged" before being delivered to the "messenger" 24 yours before they inform the most important person on earth how the jobs numbers look.
See my comparison to the accounting dept and controller above.
Even your quoted and bolder area for revisions indicates revisions are expected be less than 0.15%, which I haven't run the numbers but I think the May and June revisions were above that target %.
Fair but the numbers, in this instance, are dependent on employers sending back questionnaires in a timely manner. Which many either don't send back in a timely manner or they don't send back at all. It's my understanding that only about 50% of employers send these back.
What methodology are they using?
Quote:
Firing a career bureaucrat for simply doing their job is terrible for our country on many levels.
IndividualFreedom said:Quote:
Firing a career bureaucrat for simply doing their job is terrible for our country on many levels.
Career bureaucrats should not exist other than very few positions. A statistics career is not one of them.
Also, don't present stats knowing you are going to simply change them 3 months down the road. That is extremely dishonest.
Also part two, creating BS stats for FJB and then supplying BS stats for the POTUS you hate is beyond you're fired.
Also part three, "Elections have consequences" said democrats.
HTownAg98 said:
Instead of speculating over who benefited from past up or down revisions, you can go look at them going back to 1979 here. https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm
techno-ag said:IndividualFreedom said:Quote:
Firing a career bureaucrat for simply doing their job is terrible for our country on many levels.
Career bureaucrats should not exist other than very few positions. A statistics career is not one of them.
Also, don't present stats knowing you are going to simply change them 3 months down the road. That is extremely dishonest.
Also part two, creating BS stats for FJB and then supplying BS stats for the POTUS you hate is beyond you're fired.
Also part three, "Elections have consequences" said democrats.
Well said. This notion that a Republican President can't fire anyone a Democrat put in place is ridiculous.
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Dirty_Mike&the_boys said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:BusterAg said:
No one has told me yet why she was so good at her job. Or that she was bad at her job.
No one has offered any analysis or defense of her projections.
So, I have no way of forming an opinion about whether or not the firing was politically motivated.
On the one hand, the numbers were bad for Trump. Had the revised numbers been reported originally, we would likely have a lower interest rate right now.
On the other hand, I have no way of measuring how objective the director was or was not.
What information led to the original forecast? Was it simply cut and paste? If so, why do so many people report to her?
If there is any amount of discretion at all used, why didn't she report numbers lower originally? I think that every poster in F16 knew that the employment numbers were baked, and that unemployment was higher than being reported. How come the Director didn't know?
With the information we have, anyone speculating whether or not this firing was political is just that, a speculation.
Most on here can't explain why the numbers have to be revised or even how the numbers are calculated. Or even know that the numbers released are provisional.
Please supply everyone with a link to the BLS report disclaimer that says they are "provisional numbers" and the advisory warning that these numbers are just a wild guess and will be adjusted two months down the road every time since she's been in office. Being off a few thousand or even tens of thousands but 1.7 million? Sorry you're fired and should be banned for life of every claiming to be a.statistician.
Is this what you are asking for?
BLS MethodsQuote:
QCEW data are regularly updated after their initial release and are not considered final until the end of the first quarter of the next reference year. Once data are final, they are not edited. If errors are found in publications after particular data are released, a corrected version of the data is released along with a note on what was changed (See "Data Correction" on this page). These notes can also be found in the "QCEW Notices" section of the program web page.Quote:
Revisions
QCEW data for the first quarter of each year are published five times. The original data are first released in September of that year, and are followed by revisions in December of the same year and in March, June, and September of the next year. For example, March 2025 data are first published in September 2025, and revisions of the March 2025 data are published in December 2025 and then in March, June, and September 2026. Second-quarter data are published four times, third-quarter data three times, and fourth-quarter data twice.
The most current information about QCEW revisions can be found at Overview of QCEW Revisions, including historical revisions data back to 2017. For a detailed example of revisions in a recent production year, table 5 in the design section of this handbook shows the path of data for March 2022 from their initial publication in August 2022 to their final publication in August 2023. The initial published value of March 2022 employment is 147,648,359 jobs as seen in the first column. In the same row, the four subsequent columns are the revised values of March 2022 employment in each of the subsequent four quarters. In the next four columns, the difference between the current published value and the value of the previous quarter's published value is shown. The final column shows the difference between the original published value and the final value published 1 year later. As shown in table 6 in the design section of this handbook, the largest revision generally occurs from initial publication to the first revision, as missing reports, including reports of business deaths.4 Revisions occur due to employers responding late.5 The magnitude of the revisions is relatively small, less than 0.15 percentage points. Table 7 in the design section of this handbook shows the percentage of revision from the original value to the final publication value.
