1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.AUDIO.OPINION

  • Never believe a Biden Admin Jobs report

    From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 1 19:03:42 2023
    because they'll take it back with revisions that are lightly discussed.

    https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1697595783799845268

    CNBC's Rick Santelli on the jobs report: "The deterioration is large. The significantly large revisions make me nervous....how much we've slowed over the last several plus months."

    "The last two months are seeing a revision of three digits - minus 110,000 [jobs]." CNBC's Rick Santelli said.

    It went like this
    June:"Yesterday, we learned 209,000 jobs were created last month"
    Then the next month, that was revised down to 185,000 and now, revised down again to 105,000.
    Almost half of their original claim.
    One has to wonder WTF is going on?

    A summary of revisions for 2023. https://twitter.com/DontWalkRUN/status/1697592468986806486
    Not a single month much ended up higher than the original after 2 months of revisions. Nothing random about an error streak like that.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sat Sep 2 10:07:20 2023
    On 9/1/23 9:03 PM, ScottW wrote:
    because they'll take it back with revisions that are lightly discussed.

    Jobs reports always get revised. It's not a Biden thing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 2 09:56:48 2023
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:07:23 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 9/1/23 9:03 PM, ScottW wrote:
    because they'll take it back with revisions that are lightly discussed.
    Jobs reports always get revised. It's not a Biden thing.

    Not to this extent.

    Here's the BLM explanation of revisions.

    https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/revisions-to-jobs-numbers.htm

    Note the example of 2012.

    3 months revised down. 9 months revised up.

    Compare that to the Biden admins track record. Every month revised down.

    There is a huge and very statistically significant difference in initial accuracy and in direction of revision. Why?
    Only one explanation......they changed their methods in some manner that makes the initial estimate more positive.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sat Sep 2 12:41:34 2023
    On 9/2/23 11:56 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:07:23 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 9/1/23 9:03 PM, ScottW wrote:
    because they'll take it back with revisions that are lightly discussed.
    Jobs reports always get revised. It's not a Biden thing.

    Not to this extent.

    There's always revisions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 2 16:53:25 2023
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 10:41:37 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 9/2/23 11:56 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:07:23 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 9/1/23 9:03 PM, ScottW wrote:
    because they'll take it back with revisions that are lightly discussed. >> Jobs reports always get revised. It's not a Biden thing.

    Not to this extent.
    There's always revisions.

    Couldn't refute the evidence and had to snip it. Typical.

    The Biden track record is clear. Suddenly the BLS is consistently overstating job creation in their
    initial estimate. It's not just some of the time. It's everytime.
    In the past the BLS tended to underestimate job counts. So what changed? Bidenomics.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sun Sep 3 12:50:41 2023
    On 9/2/23 6:53 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 10:41:37 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 9/2/23 11:56 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:07:23 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 9/1/23 9:03 PM, ScottW wrote:
    because they'll take it back with revisions that are lightly discussed. >>>> Jobs reports always get revised. It's not a Biden thing.

    Not to this extent.
    There's always revisions.

    Couldn't refute the evidence and had to snip it. Typical.

    There's no evidence the next revision is substantially different from
    the revisions given every preceding estimate.

    What you call a "a huge and very statistically significant difference"
    is just a statistical anomaly.

    A change in reporting methods would be big news. It wouldn't happen in
    secret.

    The Biden track record is clear. Suddenly the BLS is consistently overstating job creation in their
    initial estimate. It's not just some of the time. It's everytime.
    In the past the BLS tended to underestimate job counts. So what changed? Bidenomics.

    Ah, you remember the revisions after all. Maybe sometimes they go up and sometimes they go down. Maybe there's a commonsense statistical reason
    for it:

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/2/7/2151657/-Newly-revised-job-numbers-show-much-bigger-gains-under-Biden-than-originally-reported

    "The experts WaPo quoted explained the trend. “These waves of revisions
    in the same direction tend to happen at turning points in the labor
    market.” In other words, when the economy is rising, the BLS tends to underestimate the jobs number in its initial report. Conversely, when
    the economy is falling, the jobs number tends to be overestimated."

    Just to restore your cite:

    https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/revisions-to-jobs-numbers.htm

    "In summary, data users should remember that the initial estimates of
    payroll employment are a preliminary look at what occurred in each
    month. It is the quick but lower-resolution snapshot of what went on in
    the job market for a particular month. Because the revised estimates are
    based on more complete data, they create a higher resolution picture—and occasionally the revised data produce a different picture altogether."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 3 14:58:08 2023
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:50:44 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 9/2/23 6:53 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 10:41:37 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 9/2/23 11:56 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:07:23 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>> On 9/1/23 9:03 PM, ScottW wrote:
    because they'll take it back with revisions that are lightly discussed.
    Jobs reports always get revised. It's not a Biden thing.

    Not to this extent.
    There's always revisions.

    Couldn't refute the evidence and had to snip it. Typical.
    There's no evidence the next revision is substantially different from
    the revisions given every preceding estimate.

    What you call a "a huge and very statistically significant difference"
    is just a statistical anomaly.

    LoL. Now you're just deliberately and obviously shoving your head up your ass.

    https://www.pymnts.com/economy/2022/1-million-reasons-why-fed-revised-jobs-report-demands-healthy-data-skepticism/

    The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia said this week that only 10,500 net new jobs were added during the second quarter “rather than the 1,121,500 jobs estimated” in previous employment reports.
    The discrepancy of more than 1 million jobs far outstrips the usual roughly 150,000 revision..


    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sun Sep 3 19:51:10 2023
    On 9/3/23 4:58 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:50:44 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 9/2/23 6:53 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 10:41:37 AM UTC-7, mINE109
    wrote:
    On 9/2/23 11:56 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:07:23 AM UTC-7, mINE109
    wrote:
    On 9/1/23 9:03 PM, ScottW wrote:
    because they'll take it back with revisions that are
    lightly discussed.
    Jobs reports always get revised. It's not a Biden thing.

    Not to this extent.
    There's always revisions.

    Couldn't refute the evidence and had to snip it. Typical.
    There's no evidence the next revision is substantially different
    from the revisions given every preceding estimate.

    What you call a "a huge and very statistically significant
    difference" is just a statistical anomaly.

    LoL.

    https://www.pymnts.com/economy/2022/1-million-reasons-why-fed-revised-jobs-report-demands-healthy-data-skepticism/

    The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia said this week that only
    10,500 net new jobs were added during the second quarter “rather than
    the 1,121,500 jobs estimated” in previous employment reports. The discrepancy of more than 1 million jobs far outstrips the usual
    roughly 150,000 revision..

    https://mishtalk.com/economics/the-philadelphia-fed-just-revised-jobs-lower-by-1-2-million-for-q2/

    "Preliminary (not-yet-benchmarked) state employment estimates from the
    Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) continue to be subject to significant revisions around turning points in the economy. These large revisions
    occur primarily because the preliminary state estimates are based on a
    small sample of firms, while subsequent annual benchmark revisions
    incorporate other BLS data based on a full count from nearly all firms."

    Hey! It's that 'turning point' thing just like the one you snipped.

    How does citing 2022 show that this is a new thing?

    "Synopsis

    The BLS Current Employment Survey (CES), the monthly jobs report, is
    timely but inaccurate, and grossly inaccurate at turns.

    Nonetheless, economic cheerleaders tout the monthly data even when the household survey shows major discrepancies."

    Grossly inaccurate would cover a million job revision.

    Sure, you're a reverse-cheerleader, but this is why I don't jump all
    over job growth reports.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 4 21:06:11 2023
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 5:51:13 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 9/3/23 4:58 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:50:44 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 9/2/23 6:53 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 10:41:37 AM UTC-7, mINE109
    wrote:
    On 9/2/23 11:56 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:07:23 AM UTC-7, mINE109
    wrote:
    On 9/1/23 9:03 PM, ScottW wrote:
    because they'll take it back with revisions that are
    lightly discussed.
    Jobs reports always get revised. It's not a Biden thing.

    Not to this extent.
    There's always revisions.

    Couldn't refute the evidence and had to snip it. Typical.
    There's no evidence the next revision is substantially different
    from the revisions given every preceding estimate.

    What you call a "a huge and very statistically significant
    difference" is just a statistical anomaly.

    LoL.

    https://www.pymnts.com/economy/2022/1-million-reasons-why-fed-revised-jobs-report-demands-healthy-data-skepticism/

    The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia said this week that only
    10,500 net new jobs were added during the second quarter “rather than the 1,121,500 jobs estimated” in previous employment reports. The discrepancy of more than 1 million jobs far outstrips the usual
    roughly 150,000 revision..
    https://mishtalk.com/economics/the-philadelphia-fed-just-revised-jobs-lower-by-1-2-million-for-q2/

    "Preliminary (not-yet-benchmarked) state employment estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) continue to be subject to significant revisions around turning points in the economy. These large revisions
    occur primarily because the preliminary state estimates are based on a
    small sample of firms, while subsequent annual benchmark revisions incorporate other BLS data based on a full count from nearly all firms."

    Hey! It's that 'turning point' thing just like the one you snipped.

    So Bidenomics is turning the economy in a bad way. Thanks for letting us know before the data is in.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Tue Sep 5 07:51:44 2023
    On 9/4/23 11:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 5:51:13 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

    https://www.pymnts.com/economy/2022/1-million-reasons-why-fed-revised-jobs-report-demands-healthy-data-skepticism/

    https://mishtalk.com/economics/the-philadelphia-fed-just-revised-jobs-lower-by-1-2-million-for-q2/

    Hey! It's that 'turning point' thing just like the one you snipped.

    So Bidenomics is turning the economy in a bad way. Thanks for letting us know
    before the data is in.

    Jobs are a lagging indicator, not a prediction. In this case, job growth
    has decreased because the Fed has raised interest rates.

    However, only one of us jumps to share the latest job reports in order
    to crow about them.

    I found a poll noteworthy enough to lift my usual policy of ignoring
    them, the recent WSJ which was the subject of this on CNN:

    https://www.mediaite.com/tv/economist-tells-cnn-its-almost-pointless-to-poll-republicans-on-the-economy-because-their-dislike-for-biden-slants-their-answers/

    According to Wolfers, “there’s no question” on whether the economy had gotten better over the past two years, because “unemployment is down, inflation is down, economic growth is up, real wages are up.”

    “Everything has gotten better over the past two years,” he continued,
    even though only 28% of people said so...

    “A big part of that is this enormous partisan gap,” said Wolfers. “It’s gotten to the point where it’s almost pointless asking Republicans how
    they feel about the economy; only 7% of them were willing to admit the
    economy had gotten better over the past two years. So I think when we
    ask these questions, people are no longer telling us how they feel about
    the economy — really they’re telling us how they feel about the president.”

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 5 08:55:45 2023
    On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 5:51:49 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 9/4/23 11:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 5:51:13 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    https://www.pymnts.com/economy/2022/1-million-reasons-why-fed-revised-jobs-report-demands-healthy-data-skepticism/

    https://mishtalk.com/economics/the-philadelphia-fed-just-revised-jobs-lower-by-1-2-million-for-q2/
    Hey! It's that 'turning point' thing just like the one you snipped.

    So Bidenomics is turning the economy in a bad way. Thanks for letting us know
    before the data is in.
    Jobs are a lagging indicator, not a prediction. In this case, job growth
    has decreased because the Fed has raised interest rates.

    However, only one of us jumps to share the latest job reports in order
    to crow about them.

    I found a poll noteworthy enough to lift my usual policy of ignoring
    them, the recent WSJ which was the subject of this on CNN:

    https://www.mediaite.com/tv/economist-tells-cnn-its-almost-pointless-to-poll-republicans-on-the-economy-because-their-dislike-for-biden-slants-their-answers/

    According to Wolfers, “there’s no question” on whether the economy had gotten better over the past two years, because “unemployment is down, inflation is down, economic growth is up, real wages are up.”

    “Everything has gotten better over the past two years,” he continued, even though only 28% of people said so...

    Yeah...we're definitely better than a covid shutdown.
    If that's your basis for measuring the economy, then you win.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Tue Sep 5 13:19:03 2023
    On 9/5/23 10:55 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 5:51:49 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

    I found a poll noteworthy enough to lift my usual policy of ignoring
    them, the recent WSJ which was the subject of this on CNN:

    https://www.mediaite.com/tv/economist-tells-cnn-its-almost-pointless-to-poll-republicans-on-the-economy-because-their-dislike-for-biden-slants-their-answers/

    According to Wolfers, “there’s no question” on whether the economy had >> gotten better over the past two years, because “unemployment is down,
    inflation is down, economic growth is up, real wages are up.”

    “Everything has gotten better over the past two years,” he continued,
    even though only 28% of people said so...

    Yeah...we're definitely better than a covid shutdown.
    If that's your basis for measuring the economy, then you win.

    Yes, that and the thru line showing we've caught up to and surpassed the
    2019 growth trend.

    https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/the-us-economic-recovery-in-international-context-2023

    "The size of the U.S economy is now over 5 percent above its 2019 level

    Core inflation in the United States is now lower than in many major
    advanced economies

    The U.S. labor market recovery has been exceptionally strong"

    https://www.wsj.com/economy/resilient-u-s-economy-defies-expectations-85be69f3

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)