Revisions in Jobs Report Show a Slower Jobs Market Than Portrayed by White House
CNBC: “We lost 150,000 jobs on revisions … That’s a huge drop.”
The April jobs report looks great. So did March and February. But there’s a buried lede.
You always have to look at revisions, which gives you a better look at previous months.
The February and March jobs report are not as good as they seemed at release time. We lost AROUND 150,000 jobs with the revision:
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for February was revised down by 78,000, from +326,000 to +248,000, and the change for March was revised down by 71,000, from +236,000 to +165,000. With these revisions, employment in February and March combined is 149,000 lower than previously reported. (Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.)
CASONE: “I went through and looked at the revisions, they are stunning. He said it, I want to say it again here. There’s 149,000 jobs that disappeared between February and March. Those revisions, and Charles is right, that’s why the market is jumping. It’s not on this print, it’s on the revisions for February and March. We went from 326 to 248K in February, 236 down to 165 in March.”
Fox Business: “I went through and looked at the revisions, they are stunning…there’s 149,000 jobs that disappeared between February and March.” pic.twitter.com/c9CIqAlaGC
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) May 5, 2023
CNBC: "We lost 150,000 jobs on revisions … That's a huge drop.” pic.twitter.com/uWr9CyHa54
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) May 5, 2023
Fox Business: “You’ve got some revisions here that show a much slower jobs market than we thought.” pic.twitter.com/B1owvhGnRA
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) May 5, 2023
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It’s not a Gain. It’s a Game.
They’re just liars.
90% of the time when a Democrat is in office they’re ‘revised’ downward to correct their initial lie to make them look good.
90% of the time when a Republican is in office they’re ‘revised’ upward to correct their initial lie to make them look bad.
True that.
Figures lie when liars figure.
I’m shocked.
Oh, wait — I used that line in the electric car thread.
How about “I’m flabbergasted?” That’s a word that should be used more often.
Voluntary, involuntary, and a financed economy with progressive prospects dependent on labor and environmental arbitrage, and policies of redistributive change, shared responsibility, capital depletion/dilution). etc.
What good are the “official” numbers, when they always include “seasonal adjustments”, AKA fudge factors?
Why doesn’t LI just pin an aggregator article with the headline BIDEN ADMINISTRATION LIES AGAIN, and just update it daily?
BLM juices the numbers to make the monthly headline look good so the Biden admin can quote the number and take credit. Then BLM revises the number later on, which would be crass if if was only confined to politics. The real problem is that it’s the ‘official’ # which is used to measure health/strength of the economy by private and public sector. In particular the Fed when making decisions about how much or how little impact their rate hikes have had.
The kicker is that many of these jobs reports are 2/3 + estimates, not real employment data at all. The participation/response rate to their surveys is in some cases around 30%. The remainder is guesstimate extrapolated into the models. That’s before the BLM even starts playing politics to fudge the numbers.
This is just well-orchestrated communication ops.
— The Presidential Spokesthing puts the distract-o-nonsense out there, defining the story of the day for a couple news cycles.
— Offical numbers, reports, analysis chime in supporthing the right tale, while focus is on.
— Later the better numbers come out, when nobody’s looking.
They get to claim both the fake good for them, and that they are accurate. This is just the Motte and Bailey technique applied to short-term news cycles. It’s easier when you have captive, unified mass communication. So, of course they had to sit in Twitter gatekeeping.