He'll fire anyone except himself apparently. Since the buck stops somewhere down in the statistics level and not at his disastrous policies.

These revision do not really paint Trump's administration in a bad light - at least on the surface and not yet. This revision level (reminder, it's just an initial estimate and the final revision was about 400,000 smaller last year than the prelim estimate), is for March 2025. So the overestimates occurred almost entirely during the Biden administration. That's not saying that the BLS Commissioner did anything wrong, she didn't. But Trump will say this proves she was making the numbers higher for Biden than they really were and doing it on purpose. I don't think this will prompt any additional "firings" unless he tries to dissolve BLS altogether, or end the CES program which I wouldn't put past him.

He can blame it on Biden and the BLS Commissioner he already fired. See post #2.

He'll fire everyone until he gets numbers he likes.

for correcting the numbers.

However, looking at the monthly QCEW data, it appears the divergence of the 2 programs really spiked in December 2024. And it continued to grow each month through March 2025. That makes some sense. Since Trump was elected in November, it should not be a surprise that job growth could sharply decline immediately following that, particularly with his promise of job killing tariffs.

I really love this part,...'signaling economy on shakier footing than realized'. Realized by whom ? Most with any sense knew it was very shaky.

Last edited Tue Sep 9, 2025, 06:10 PM - Edit history (4)

occurred in the 9 2/3 months of the Biden administration, and how much occurred in the 2 1/3 months of the tRump administration (remember this report covers the 12 months through March 2025), will be disappointed. I've looked thru all of it --

News release: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/prebmk.nr0.htm

Technical note: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/prebmk.tn.htm

Calculation aggregation procedures: www.bls.gov/opub/hom/ces/calculation.htm#aggregation-procedures

=======================================
The 911k 12-month number amounts to an average of 75.9k/month average

Here are the nonfarm payroll jobs numbers that were reported 9/5/25 for perspective
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143524396#post11

The headline payroll job numbers (+22,000 in AUGUST) come from the Establishment Survey
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
Monthly changes (in thousands): https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth
YEAR: JAN FEB MAR etc.
2022: 225 869 471 305 241 461 696 237 227 400 297 126
2023: 444 306 85 216 227 257 148 157 158 186 141 269
2024: 119 222 246 118 193 87 88 71 240 44 261 323
2025: 111 102 120 158 19 -13 79 22

The numbers at this time series will not be revised by the benchmark adjustment until the final benchmark report to be released in February 2026.
(The last 2 months -- July and August -- are still subject to revisions in the regular usual monthly jobs report procedures)

ETA 9/9 300p ET: In the Biden months of the benchmark revision period -- April 2024 thru January 2025 - job growth averaged 153.6k/month.
The average per-month benchmark revision is 911k/12 = 75.9k
If one reduces the 10 Biden months by 75.9k/month, that leaves only 77.6k/month average job growth in the 10 Biden months

(yes, in the above calculation, I'm including January 2025 as a Biden month, even though he was president for 2/3 of the month. That's because the survey week for the Establishment Survey that produces the numbers in the table above is the week that includes the 12th of the month -- that week in January is entirely before the inauguration).

For the tRump 2 months (Feb & March), job growth averaged 111k/month.
If one reduces the tRump months by 75.9k/month, that leaves only 35.1k/month average job growth in the two tRump months

If one accepts the April 2025 and following numbers in the table above as-is, but uses 35k/month for February and March, then one has for the tRump months:
FebMarApr MayJunJul Aug
35 35 158 19 -13 79 22 = 335k = 47.9k/month average job growth in the tRump months
Any benchmark revisions to April 2025 and beyond are likely to be downward, reducing the tRump averageEnd ETA

=======================================
Note that this is a preliminary report:

I bring this up because yesterday, a DU poster included a link to a Bloomberg report that is at odds with this CNBC report.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/another-us-jobs-markdown-sets-100000691.html

This link shows that one year ago, the report showed a downward revision of 818,000 for the period ending March 2024. The CNBC report describes these revisions as "more than 50% higher than last year’s adjustment ". The CNBC report also states, "for the year prior to March 2025." My understanding is that it includes March 2025, so it should read "for the year ending March 2025". The CNBC report goes on to say, "Most of the time span for the report came before President Donald Trump took office, indicating the jobs picture was deteriorating before he began levying tariffs against U.S. trading partners." Nobody claims that the job picture was not deteriorating as Trump came into office. Of course, the period covered precedes nearly all of the tariffs put in place by Trump.

And this is just from a quick glance.

has been around (in it's current form) since the early '90s.

Here was the thread from last year - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143294175 (same source - CNBC)

The way they characterized it last year was this -

Meaning that the "actuals" for that period were "30% less" than originally reported (headlines) for that period. In that last year's report, they actually give you what the total of the "initial report" numbers were for the period, which makes it easier to get the calculation.

For some reason, most of the other sites reporting this data release this year (including CNBC, MarketWatch, Yahoo! Finance) were missing the TOTAL of what was was originally reported during that period, in order to more easily compare and calculate the "x%" difference.

Here is a Barron's excerpt from today that actually gives the total of the "initial report" figures for that period to compare -

where the Dukes are watching their fortune being drained on the commodities floor.

I am aware that pisspants' economic policies will hurt people but at least many of them will be those who support(ed) him. I do believe in reaping what you sow.

I don't think we can put it past this Regime and its toadies.