Great breakdown, Eric. How much overlap do the "Super Users" have with DNC megadonors? Insider trading and bribery are legal for the limousine liberals - it's a great big club and you ain't in it!
As just an interested old lady who doesn't know much about too many things, I very much appreciate the author,s important distinction between data and its use. It comes as no surprise that incorrect (improper) use of correct data will lead to artificial outcomes, as will its opposite.
No surprise either that timing has an outsize effect on such unstable ephemera as the artiface of markets and politics.
It should go without saying that an unreliable collection process will result in unreliable reporting and necessary correction. Once again, I,m forced to conclude that our brains need need to stay on.
She did change data enr on her blotter. They call it obstruction of justice. It's the same thing Hillary did when she wiped her servers, but they did nothing.
Martha was convicted for perjury; from AI = Martha Stewart was charged with and convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to federal investigators (lying to the government) in connection with her December 2001 sale of ImClone Systems stock. She was not found guilty of the primary charge of securities fraud (insider trading) during the criminal trial — that charge was dismissed by the judge — but was convicted for attempting to cover up the stock sale by lying and obstructing justice during the ensuing investigation.
Another interesting fact: Stewart was prosecuted by James Comey, and this case is widely viewed as a key milestone in commencing his rise through the ranks.
Thank goodness that all the conservative Big Donors of this fine nation are on the up and up and honest as the day is long and never ever dream of self dealing while upholding the intent and spirit of The Law at all times. They will save the day for all us Little People and all will be well!
"Thank goodness that all the conservative Big Donors of this fine nation are on the up and up and honest as the day is long"
Not sure how you derived this (clearly sarcastic) "conclusion" from the article. It has nothing to do with political leanings, but with corruption in gov't bureaucracy, VERY MUCH like what Matt et.al. have been reporting about Russiagate, which clearly DOES have political implications.
I was replying to Yuri. It’s the corrupt murderous machine I’m concerned about, which has no party or national allegiance. Yuri continues to promote the divisive concept that sociopathic power mad oligarchs are good guys or bad guys depending on party registration.
Facts are facts. These elected officials did nothing wrong because it's not illegal but rather it's perfectly acceptable/legal to trade as an insider with knowledge only elected officials have. Complain all you want but your representatives make the rules they live under. Trying to get them to make a very profitable behavior illegal is about as likely as getting them to vote themselves a pay cut or term limits or requiring they must use the same insurance the rest of us do. MTG is disappointing but not a criminal. Not sure about the rest who partake of this get-rich-quick scheme.
These shenanigans have existed since the inception of "securities". The Wall Street exchanges make Al Swearengen's Gem, at Deadwood, seem like an honest church bingo game by comparison.
Another great RACKET offering and insight.Thank you Eric.
If I can't trust the process I can't trust the people controlling it. Distrust-suspicion-and another rigged game reveal. The poor souls outside bubble land twisting in the distorted reality of mal economic consequence don't need the BLS to tell them their pockets are empty --their every dime taken without recourse.
From Starmer's England to Pelosi's stock portfolio the problem isn't the "..choke on a gnat--swallow a camel whole--" hypocrisy of the machine. It is the amorality of the beasts distorting American reality and feeding on the lives and labor of its citizens. And from Starmer's thought crime England to Pelosi/bankster fraud and corruption it is the perps willingness to double down on the lie killing freedom and the Republic. And their willingness to destroy human dignity to maintain it.
Where does distrust/suspicion and repression-- living inside a lie as the American landscape crumbles lead? The "..who knows what the truth is.." electronic sewer is now offering information on how to escape the collapse alive--and the availability of--how to trap-- and the best way to cook and eat--squirrel meat. (Bet your life--which We the People are doing--the perps are running to capture the "market".)
or as Frank Zappa put it: ''cause what they do down in Washington, is just takes care of Number 1, and Number 1 ain't you; you ain't even Number 2!" I took the "Number 2" reference as a double entendre, meaning both numerical standing and potty-talk.
yah louis bacon and ken griffin are democratic mega donors…this is a totally stupid article except for the allusion to data problems. it not politics its money if there was a leak.
"“Why would one ‘Republican,’ Senator Josh Hawley...join with all of the Democrats to block a Review, sponsored by Senator Rick Scott, and with the support of almost all other Republicans, of Nancy Pelosi’s Stock Trading over the last 25 years....Before the vote, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) pressed Hawley to work with him to improve the bill. But Hawley and Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) expanded the ban to apply to the president and vice president for future administration before the vote, while also opting to change the name, which previously referred to Pelosi."
Seems the "carve out" also shielded Pelosi from investigation over the past 25 years.
I think that bill is bullshit. Banning ALL stock trading by members of Congress and their spouses badly misses the point of what Pelosi types actually do.
On top of that, it seems bursting with ripeness for carve-outs. Are they really not going to let a Congressman sell some stock to pay for their kid's college? Or buy a house?
Does it even ban options trading? Because that is the lowest hanging fruit of all - look at Pelosi's disclosures. She is constantly buying and selling options - a genuinely ridiculous spectacle. I don't see any issue with banning options trading.
Also - more generally - the cash cow for these ppl is not buying and selling publicly traded equities. It's bullshit book deals (written by someone else and read by no one) and speaking fees, which they rake in from donors.
Banning buying and selling ordinary public equities would end up benefitting two types of ppl, those who are already extremely rich, and those who extract their lagniappes from publishers and "speaking fees." And of course it would give both of those groups cover to claim that they're the ones who are actually trying to get tough on this issue.
Sadly, this is how Congress works. Hawley's bill would have gone nowhere and had no Dem support had he not altered those items. He would have gotten NOTHING or what he got which was no smearing of their goddess, Pelosi. So he changed the name of the bill and added POTUS and VP. Fine. Now the Dems have no reason not to vote yes... Right?
The BLS monthly numbers have been "revised" so dramatically in recent years as to make them useless. Don't know if it is rigged, but the current system is unreliable and in need of real change.
As an old newspaper business editor, I've seen these revision issues since the 1980s. I agree: I don't think they're rigged, but the system sucks and needs to be rebuilt. Or, they should skip releasing the initial numbers and turn the revised numbers into the first release. This big a change from initial to revised does nobody any good.
Or... just spitballing. It's incompetence. Having worked in government myself... I'm going to go with that. Government at all levels has 1 worker for every 10 or 12 riders. The issue is when you get a department head that's been a rider for their entire career. They don't recognize the actual workers.
Now... in the case of these jobs numbers... the timing of them does lead to... coincidental good fortune for a certain political party that seems to align nicely with the person who leads the department. It might literally be just coincidence, but damn.. it's a fine and dandy one for sure.
Watching the difference between “Seasonally Adjusted” vs. “Nonseasonally Adjusted” has proven to be a very useful exercise for me over the decades, as Headline numbers (Seasonally Adjusted) move too much month over month to be statistically reliable.
I think they should be published with some sort of error bars and that BLS needs to really try to make the adjustments average to zero. If they are always high and then readjusted down that’s a problem. If they are balanced BLS should publicize that. If there is a reason they always get corrected down then they can look at adding a bias correction (like pollsters can/could do with election polls which are hopelessly biased — but BLS should have no legitimate reason to bias results).
Yes. To me the best approach for BLS is to quit jumping the gun. Skip publishing initial numbers and wait until the first revisions are in to make those the first release. First revision isn't perfect, but are much closer to reality than initial.
That would mean having to hire more people. BLS isn't that big of an agency. They've already had to stop data collection in certain areas due to hiring freeze.
«The BLS monthly numbers have been "revised" so dramatically in recent years as to make them useless.»
Even with the best intentions it is really hard to get high degrees of short-term accuracy on an economy as complex and fuzzy at the edges as a modern big country one. It was easier when big onshore companies with large bureaucracies and long-term employee careers were more common, in an economy pinochetized to have many temp jobs in short-run service businesses it is much harder.
Garbage in garbage out. Just another useless federal agency, who it appears now, solely exists to help rig the game to favor the big money investment banks. I wonder how much such insider information is worth??? Someone needs to follow the money of all the agency employees involved in the leak.
Is the BLS being political? Probably not, but I wouldn't put it past them. Not after what we have learned about the institutions in general.
One notable issue is the chasm between the Household and the Establishment Surveys. In the latest jobs report, the Establishment Survey showed 73,000 jobs were created. However if you look at the household survey, the number of people collecting paychecks fell by 260k.
The unemployment rate has been kept down by a falling labor force participation rate.
In short, the Employment Situation Report shows a rosier economy than the vibes seem to indicate.
IMO Trump's anger might have been due to the fact that the Fed has been using the "strong" jobs market as an excuse to keep monetary policy overly tight, while the current data suggests the Fed should be neutral.
The fact that the Fed Funds futures swung so dramatically after the jobs report shows that Trump was correct here. The Fed is too tight, and bad numbers out of BLS gave them the excuse wait for inflation that may or may not ever materialize. Turns out that data was wrong.
Powell knew all of this as well. He has relied on the fallacy of tariffs creating inflation - they don't, they are a potential drag on the economy, not an accelerator (and he knows that) - because he knew that was a talking point. Now with these revisions (and the labor participation rate after a spike started falling after March) he has no where to hide. He is acting to maintain his status with the "right" crowd in DC. He has no reason to maintain tightness - the PPI dropped .05 at the last reading.
The Fed is setting up to create another recession by waiting too long. Which they do more frequently than you might think. The easing needn't be too big. A couple of .25 point moves might be all that is needed. But he is acting the partisan. And he is beginning to lose his committee. Grow up or get out.
The Fed forecasts put the neutral rate at somewhere between 3.0% and 3.5%. So they are tight by at least 100 basis points.
And they probably will create a recession, which the media will of course blame on Trump.
IMO Powell is the worst Fed Chairman since G William Miller. He treated a temporary COVID-driven recession with the same tools that Ben Bernanke used to treat a burst residential real estate bubble. He bought trillions of MBS which sent the resi market up 20% and created the shelter inflation that has driven the indices since.
His final act will be to cause an unnecessary recession because he doesn't like Trump and doesn't want to make the "transitory" mistake again. As if transitory was the error and not treating 2020 like 2008 was.
Based upon your analysis that would suggest a 50 point cut then keeping another 50 point cut down the line. The longer you wait, the more dramatic the reaction has to be.
He probably could have nipped the 2022 recession in the bud had he done some light tightening right after Biden dropped a bunch of money on people who already were sitting on a bunch of money. By the time he moved inflation was running well over 10% in real terms.
He’s consistently late, and in a manner that supports his political leanings.
1000% correct. I'm wondering if we should ban the reporting of employment data starting in May of every Pesidential election year. Her 818k downward revision in August 2024 gave Powell cover for his 50 point rate cut in September 2024. Her subsequent "better than expected" numbers post-election gave Powell cover to stop cutting rates (and when was the last time the Fed stated a rate raising or cutting regime and stopped after just two meetings?). Now those numbers were also wrong. If Powell now refuses to cut rates at its next meeting, we will know that Powell is utterly politicized.
Financial markets make decisions based on this data. The fact that it may not be fair or accurate makes it look like we're being forced to careen into a recession when it can be avoided. If more accurate data had come out 2 months ago, Powell would've cut and maybe Trump would've been forced to put a break to his tariff crusade. It's also not as if Fed chair's don't have more accurate information available to him within the Fed, otherwise why was he so gung-ho in cutting by a full 50bps before the election.
Excellent report and as is typical we are all supposed to be satisfied with a group of "external" reviewers who we all know are just another group of insiders whose report was crafted to limit doubt, skepticism and cynicism among the hoi polloi. Idiosyncratic my foot.
Another great report, Eric. A couple notes from an observer: I used to get regular survey forms for my small business. I filled them out and sent them in because I understood that they were the basis for good data. I've read that businesses no longer take the time to do as I did, so it's probably time to rethink the collection process.
Also, the previous BLS Commissioner - appointed during Trump's first term - was recently interviewed. He recounted working with the Biden administration, "They asked for better numbers for Indigineous people, and we got them. They asked for better numbers for Pacific Islanders, and we got them." In other words, there was more concern with DEI than accurate gathering of data.
The BLS can easily sign up to get real time data from multiple publicly companies that span the economy, MasterCard and Visa come to mind. Payroll data from ADP and all other payroll companies. Far more accurate than depending on businesses to complete surveys. This is 2025 not 1985.
Thank you, Eric. If “self-regulating” exchanges were even remotely interested in seemingly “fair access” markets for all instead of just catering to their largest customers by looking away, the clearing corp/back office 2nd layer data would name names, prop desk omnibus or connected individual accounts. But, leaving that particular problem aside for now….it highlights the larger reliability problem for ANY data from the US Government.
Following the enactment of The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, is there ANY incentive within ANY US Government Agency to be accurate in any work product, except for the political utility at any given moment? Unfortunately, there is no private service from whom to get the same data, which can be held criminally liable for “bad faith” products. With this Modernization, there is NO such recourse with the US Govt. What’s even worse, there’s no way to even know if the data released was altered in exchange for the “right” political donation?
The Modernization Act, plus Operation Mockingbird, are just two examples of the true underlying problem of corrupted information from the US Government. The BLS firing may have finally dragged this issue into some well deserved sunlight.
I left out that the US Govt is under NO obligation to do any of this correctly, under current law.
Also, since this is the Only data we get, one has to trade off of whatever flawed info that Is provided. Implies that many things are mispriced as a result. Market “corrections” aren’t pretty, but one’s coming if they “fix” this.
If ADP didn’t so blatantly change its methodology monthly that they were forced to stop publishing it, their data might matter, but there’s Zandi’s thumb again. Gallagher just keeps the running tab…
The "super users" communications are a form of insider trading that can/should be prosecuted. That said, Trump's firing of the BLS director for "making me look bad" was stupid and venal. If he'd announced he has issues with how BLS disseminates information to users and was ordering a fix, that would have been welcome. Instead, Trump steps on his own dick.
It's not as bad as you imply here, but the thing that is more irksome is that Trump complained about the 818k downward revision in August 2024 (which one could argue gave Powell cover to cut interest rates by 50 points in September, right before the election...) so the optics would have been better for him to have fired her on 1/20/2025 simply as part of a swamp draining exercise. But a .4 revision is certainly justification for firing now as it's a number that is at the tail of a standard deviation. Your goal as director of BLS should be to never allow that to happen on your watch.
I would agree with "it's not as bad as you imply here" had he fired her for the reason you state. But per usual, he can't control his mouth. He fired her with the accusation that she personally made the change "in order to make me look bad." That's a lie, as no director can single-handedly change all the data needed to make anybody look good or bad. Moreover, it's libel and slander for which she could sue him, as slandering an employee does not fall in his job description for president. A few more million tax dollars wasted in legal fees because he can't shut up.
The BLS reporting systems needs an overhaul to avoid these gyrations. That does not equate to "in order to make me look bad."
I don't think BLS has been "up to" anything except working with a system that has design flaws baked into it. It would be useful to examine the data collection system and come up with a better way to distribute, perhaps by publishing data only after the first revisions are in.
In my opinion he slandered her by claiming she cooked the books to make him look bad. That's an outrageous accusation on which she should collect.
It just doesn't work that way. The commissioner only hears what the numbers are the day before release, if that. By that time, the data is loaded and embargoed in the publishing system.
The BLS commissioner is the only political appointee and doesn't access any of the systems used in calculating or publishing the data. People that high up are in meetings all day with their SES-ers, DOL higher-ups, and public engagements.
If a politically appointed commissioner doesn’t have to answer for mistakes, why exactly does there need to be a commissioner? How many politically appointed commissioners are we paying huge salaries? Just asking.
If you also look at the Biden years every month had a revision of the previous month and two month’s employment numbers. The whole Biden presidency was bullshit as far as labor stats go. All the while they were feeding “their oligarchs” inside information. Any wonder how Pelosi keeps making those winning trades? Other members of congress too but her winning streak is unmatched by Warren Buffet or Ray Dalio or Steven Cohen.
According to Karoline Leavitt in a press briefing I watched recently, Nancy had a 70% return on her investments, beating Warren Buffett's 30 something percent. She doesn't even try to hide it, saying in a CNN interview when pressed, that her husband is in charge of all of that, as if that makes it better. I haven't heard many talking about the app created to follow her husband's trades, that my son loosely follows. In my fantasy world, she would have to donate all earnings amassed from this money during her entire time in Congress to a worthy cause or several causes, or to the government to pay down the debt a little. So corrupt.
Didn't they make a movie about this?? Of course they did and it was a comedy. What a surprise that deep staters with "knowledge" would leak information to the big money people.
RE Super users:"It was an idiosyncratically collected group of emails of people"...and we stopped doing it WHEN WE GOT CAUGHT. There, fixed it for them...
"I have to give McEntarfer credit for some fantastic, institutionalized bullshit there!" Yes. "Idiosyncratically collected" is now officially on my list of favorite gaslighting phrases!
Great breakdown, Eric. How much overlap do the "Super Users" have with DNC megadonors? Insider trading and bribery are legal for the limousine liberals - it's a great big club and you ain't in it!
As just an interested old lady who doesn't know much about too many things, I very much appreciate the author,s important distinction between data and its use. It comes as no surprise that incorrect (improper) use of correct data will lead to artificial outcomes, as will its opposite.
No surprise either that timing has an outsize effect on such unstable ephemera as the artiface of markets and politics.
It should go without saying that an unreliable collection process will result in unreliable reporting and necessary correction. Once again, I,m forced to conclude that our brains need need to stay on.
These same people who threw Martha Stewart in prison.
She did change data enr on her blotter. They call it obstruction of justice. It's the same thing Hillary did when she wiped her servers, but they did nothing.
Didn't Martha Stewart go to prison for something like this?
Martha was convicted for perjury; from AI = Martha Stewart was charged with and convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to federal investigators (lying to the government) in connection with her December 2001 sale of ImClone Systems stock. She was not found guilty of the primary charge of securities fraud (insider trading) during the criminal trial — that charge was dismissed by the judge — but was convicted for attempting to cover up the stock sale by lying and obstructing justice during the ensuing investigation.
Another interesting fact: Stewart was prosecuted by James Comey, and this case is widely viewed as a key milestone in commencing his rise through the ranks.
Thank goodness that all the conservative Big Donors of this fine nation are on the up and up and honest as the day is long and never ever dream of self dealing while upholding the intent and spirit of The Law at all times. They will save the day for all us Little People and all will be well!
"Thank goodness that all the conservative Big Donors of this fine nation are on the up and up and honest as the day is long"
Not sure how you derived this (clearly sarcastic) "conclusion" from the article. It has nothing to do with political leanings, but with corruption in gov't bureaucracy, VERY MUCH like what Matt et.al. have been reporting about Russiagate, which clearly DOES have political implications.
I was replying to Yuri. It’s the corrupt murderous machine I’m concerned about, which has no party or national allegiance. Yuri continues to promote the divisive concept that sociopathic power mad oligarchs are good guys or bad guys depending on party registration.
Ahh...now I see, and I totally agree about "the corrupt murderous machine..which has no party or national allegiance". My bad!
Facts are facts. These elected officials did nothing wrong because it's not illegal but rather it's perfectly acceptable/legal to trade as an insider with knowledge only elected officials have. Complain all you want but your representatives make the rules they live under. Trying to get them to make a very profitable behavior illegal is about as likely as getting them to vote themselves a pay cut or term limits or requiring they must use the same insurance the rest of us do. MTG is disappointing but not a criminal. Not sure about the rest who partake of this get-rich-quick scheme.
These shenanigans have existed since the inception of "securities". The Wall Street exchanges make Al Swearengen's Gem, at Deadwood, seem like an honest church bingo game by comparison.
Another great RACKET offering and insight.Thank you Eric.
If I can't trust the process I can't trust the people controlling it. Distrust-suspicion-and another rigged game reveal. The poor souls outside bubble land twisting in the distorted reality of mal economic consequence don't need the BLS to tell them their pockets are empty --their every dime taken without recourse.
From Starmer's England to Pelosi's stock portfolio the problem isn't the "..choke on a gnat--swallow a camel whole--" hypocrisy of the machine. It is the amorality of the beasts distorting American reality and feeding on the lives and labor of its citizens. And from Starmer's thought crime England to Pelosi/bankster fraud and corruption it is the perps willingness to double down on the lie killing freedom and the Republic. And their willingness to destroy human dignity to maintain it.
Where does distrust/suspicion and repression-- living inside a lie as the American landscape crumbles lead? The "..who knows what the truth is.." electronic sewer is now offering information on how to escape the collapse alive--and the availability of--how to trap-- and the best way to cook and eat--squirrel meat. (Bet your life--which We the People are doing--the perps are running to capture the "market".)
"it's a great big club and you ain't in it!"
or as Frank Zappa put it: ''cause what they do down in Washington, is just takes care of Number 1, and Number 1 ain't you; you ain't even Number 2!" I took the "Number 2" reference as a double entendre, meaning both numerical standing and potty-talk.
Agree, good writing from the FNG
yah louis bacon and ken griffin are democratic mega donors…this is a totally stupid article except for the allusion to data problems. it not politics its money if there was a leak.
So that is how a lowly Federal employee can afford a massive house the the DC area. Trade on insider knowledge just like Nancy P.
Or like most in Congress.
Just don’t try it if your a deplorable you will end up in jail
Don't worry, there's a bunch of them in there, too. How do you go from a net worth of around 200 thousand, and in five years it's 2.2 million?
Marjorie TG’s reported net worth pre-Congress was $700,000 and now north of $22,000,000.
Exactly. They all bitch and moan about it, yet they do it themselves. Or, get their families involved by creating NGOS to enrich them.
like Martha Stewart!
Martha wan't convicted on trading. She was convicted of perjury... lying to congress.
Just read that Trump or perhaps any President was “carved out”…
Carved out of Josh Hawley’s insider trading bill
Power corrupts. It,s human nature and bound to happen sooner or later. it,s a hell of a note to leave this world on.
TERM LIMITS!
"“Why would one ‘Republican,’ Senator Josh Hawley...join with all of the Democrats to block a Review, sponsored by Senator Rick Scott, and with the support of almost all other Republicans, of Nancy Pelosi’s Stock Trading over the last 25 years....Before the vote, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) pressed Hawley to work with him to improve the bill. But Hawley and Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) expanded the ban to apply to the president and vice president for future administration before the vote, while also opting to change the name, which previously referred to Pelosi."
Seems the "carve out" also shielded Pelosi from investigation over the past 25 years.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5428633-trump-attacks-hawley-stock-bill/
I think that bill is bullshit. Banning ALL stock trading by members of Congress and their spouses badly misses the point of what Pelosi types actually do.
On top of that, it seems bursting with ripeness for carve-outs. Are they really not going to let a Congressman sell some stock to pay for their kid's college? Or buy a house?
Does it even ban options trading? Because that is the lowest hanging fruit of all - look at Pelosi's disclosures. She is constantly buying and selling options - a genuinely ridiculous spectacle. I don't see any issue with banning options trading.
Also - more generally - the cash cow for these ppl is not buying and selling publicly traded equities. It's bullshit book deals (written by someone else and read by no one) and speaking fees, which they rake in from donors.
Banning buying and selling ordinary public equities would end up benefitting two types of ppl, those who are already extremely rich, and those who extract their lagniappes from publishers and "speaking fees." And of course it would give both of those groups cover to claim that they're the ones who are actually trying to get tough on this issue.
Sadly, this is how Congress works. Hawley's bill would have gone nowhere and had no Dem support had he not altered those items. He would have gotten NOTHING or what he got which was no smearing of their goddess, Pelosi. So he changed the name of the bill and added POTUS and VP. Fine. Now the Dems have no reason not to vote yes... Right?
I suppose! It seems there have several failed attempts at this. Curious how Congress hasn't seemed willing to pass this legislation!
"Died in a previous Congress"
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr6141
nuke DC
This story has Hunter's "nose prints" all over it! ;)
The BLS monthly numbers have been "revised" so dramatically in recent years as to make them useless. Don't know if it is rigged, but the current system is unreliable and in need of real change.
As an old newspaper business editor, I've seen these revision issues since the 1980s. I agree: I don't think they're rigged, but the system sucks and needs to be rebuilt. Or, they should skip releasing the initial numbers and turn the revised numbers into the first release. This big a change from initial to revised does nobody any good.
Or... just spitballing. It's incompetence. Having worked in government myself... I'm going to go with that. Government at all levels has 1 worker for every 10 or 12 riders. The issue is when you get a department head that's been a rider for their entire career. They don't recognize the actual workers.
Now... in the case of these jobs numbers... the timing of them does lead to... coincidental good fortune for a certain political party that seems to align nicely with the person who leads the department. It might literally be just coincidence, but damn.. it's a fine and dandy one for sure.
The .4 error this time is inexcusable, especially after rmthe August 2024 818k downward revision.
Watching the difference between “Seasonally Adjusted” vs. “Nonseasonally Adjusted” has proven to be a very useful exercise for me over the decades, as Headline numbers (Seasonally Adjusted) move too much month over month to be statistically reliable.
I think they should be published with some sort of error bars and that BLS needs to really try to make the adjustments average to zero. If they are always high and then readjusted down that’s a problem. If they are balanced BLS should publicize that. If there is a reason they always get corrected down then they can look at adding a bias correction (like pollsters can/could do with election polls which are hopelessly biased — but BLS should have no legitimate reason to bias results).
Yes. To me the best approach for BLS is to quit jumping the gun. Skip publishing initial numbers and wait until the first revisions are in to make those the first release. First revision isn't perfect, but are much closer to reality than initial.
That would mean having to hire more people. BLS isn't that big of an agency. They've already had to stop data collection in certain areas due to hiring freeze.
«The BLS monthly numbers have been "revised" so dramatically in recent years as to make them useless.»
Even with the best intentions it is really hard to get high degrees of short-term accuracy on an economy as complex and fuzzy at the edges as a modern big country one. It was easier when big onshore companies with large bureaucracies and long-term employee careers were more common, in an economy pinochetized to have many temp jobs in short-run service businesses it is much harder.
Great reporting! That anyone believes the JP Morgan's or BlackRock's of the world don't have access to insider information is stunning to me.
My only regret is that Vanguard wasn't among those on that list....(my preferred brokerage)
Likely the subsidiaries are on the list
From now on, we should shorten the acronym to simply "BS".
Garbage in garbage out. Just another useless federal agency, who it appears now, solely exists to help rig the game to favor the big money investment banks. I wonder how much such insider information is worth??? Someone needs to follow the money of all the agency employees involved in the leak.
Is the BLS being political? Probably not, but I wouldn't put it past them. Not after what we have learned about the institutions in general.
One notable issue is the chasm between the Household and the Establishment Surveys. In the latest jobs report, the Establishment Survey showed 73,000 jobs were created. However if you look at the household survey, the number of people collecting paychecks fell by 260k.
The unemployment rate has been kept down by a falling labor force participation rate.
In short, the Employment Situation Report shows a rosier economy than the vibes seem to indicate.
IMO Trump's anger might have been due to the fact that the Fed has been using the "strong" jobs market as an excuse to keep monetary policy overly tight, while the current data suggests the Fed should be neutral.
The fact that the Fed Funds futures swung so dramatically after the jobs report shows that Trump was correct here. The Fed is too tight, and bad numbers out of BLS gave them the excuse wait for inflation that may or may not ever materialize. Turns out that data was wrong.
Powell knew all of this as well. He has relied on the fallacy of tariffs creating inflation - they don't, they are a potential drag on the economy, not an accelerator (and he knows that) - because he knew that was a talking point. Now with these revisions (and the labor participation rate after a spike started falling after March) he has no where to hide. He is acting to maintain his status with the "right" crowd in DC. He has no reason to maintain tightness - the PPI dropped .05 at the last reading.
The Fed is setting up to create another recession by waiting too long. Which they do more frequently than you might think. The easing needn't be too big. A couple of .25 point moves might be all that is needed. But he is acting the partisan. And he is beginning to lose his committee. Grow up or get out.
The Fed forecasts put the neutral rate at somewhere between 3.0% and 3.5%. So they are tight by at least 100 basis points.
And they probably will create a recession, which the media will of course blame on Trump.
IMO Powell is the worst Fed Chairman since G William Miller. He treated a temporary COVID-driven recession with the same tools that Ben Bernanke used to treat a burst residential real estate bubble. He bought trillions of MBS which sent the resi market up 20% and created the shelter inflation that has driven the indices since.
His final act will be to cause an unnecessary recession because he doesn't like Trump and doesn't want to make the "transitory" mistake again. As if transitory was the error and not treating 2020 like 2008 was.
Based upon your analysis that would suggest a 50 point cut then keeping another 50 point cut down the line. The longer you wait, the more dramatic the reaction has to be.
He probably could have nipped the 2022 recession in the bud had he done some light tightening right after Biden dropped a bunch of money on people who already were sitting on a bunch of money. By the time he moved inflation was running well over 10% in real terms.
He’s consistently late, and in a manner that supports his political leanings.
1000% correct. I'm wondering if we should ban the reporting of employment data starting in May of every Pesidential election year. Her 818k downward revision in August 2024 gave Powell cover for his 50 point rate cut in September 2024. Her subsequent "better than expected" numbers post-election gave Powell cover to stop cutting rates (and when was the last time the Fed stated a rate raising or cutting regime and stopped after just two meetings?). Now those numbers were also wrong. If Powell now refuses to cut rates at its next meeting, we will know that Powell is utterly politicized.
Financial markets make decisions based on this data. The fact that it may not be fair or accurate makes it look like we're being forced to careen into a recession when it can be avoided. If more accurate data had come out 2 months ago, Powell would've cut and maybe Trump would've been forced to put a break to his tariff crusade. It's also not as if Fed chair's don't have more accurate information available to him within the Fed, otherwise why was he so gung-ho in cutting by a full 50bps before the election.
Excellent report and as is typical we are all supposed to be satisfied with a group of "external" reviewers who we all know are just another group of insiders whose report was crafted to limit doubt, skepticism and cynicism among the hoi polloi. Idiosyncratic my foot.
The scoreboard means nothing if the operator gets to make up the numbers he displays
Another great report, Eric. A couple notes from an observer: I used to get regular survey forms for my small business. I filled them out and sent them in because I understood that they were the basis for good data. I've read that businesses no longer take the time to do as I did, so it's probably time to rethink the collection process.
Also, the previous BLS Commissioner - appointed during Trump's first term - was recently interviewed. He recounted working with the Biden administration, "They asked for better numbers for Indigineous people, and we got them. They asked for better numbers for Pacific Islanders, and we got them." In other words, there was more concern with DEI than accurate gathering of data.
The BLS can easily sign up to get real time data from multiple publicly companies that span the economy, MasterCard and Visa come to mind. Payroll data from ADP and all other payroll companies. Far more accurate than depending on businesses to complete surveys. This is 2025 not 1985.
Exactly. Thanks for the examples.
Gee, I can't trust my Government? What a shocker.
Thank you, Eric. If “self-regulating” exchanges were even remotely interested in seemingly “fair access” markets for all instead of just catering to their largest customers by looking away, the clearing corp/back office 2nd layer data would name names, prop desk omnibus or connected individual accounts. But, leaving that particular problem aside for now….it highlights the larger reliability problem for ANY data from the US Government.
Following the enactment of The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, is there ANY incentive within ANY US Government Agency to be accurate in any work product, except for the political utility at any given moment? Unfortunately, there is no private service from whom to get the same data, which can be held criminally liable for “bad faith” products. With this Modernization, there is NO such recourse with the US Govt. What’s even worse, there’s no way to even know if the data released was altered in exchange for the “right” political donation?
The Modernization Act, plus Operation Mockingbird, are just two examples of the true underlying problem of corrupted information from the US Government. The BLS firing may have finally dragged this issue into some well deserved sunlight.
I left out that the US Govt is under NO obligation to do any of this correctly, under current law.
Also, since this is the Only data we get, one has to trade off of whatever flawed info that Is provided. Implies that many things are mispriced as a result. Market “corrections” aren’t pretty, but one’s coming if they “fix” this.
But remember, this is why CNBC feverishly reports on ADP's and Challenger & Gray's employment estimates each month.
If ADP didn’t so blatantly change its methodology monthly that they were forced to stop publishing it, their data might matter, but there’s Zandi’s thumb again. Gallagher just keeps the running tab…
Challenger, not Gallagher, I blame my phone...
The "super users" communications are a form of insider trading that can/should be prosecuted. That said, Trump's firing of the BLS director for "making me look bad" was stupid and venal. If he'd announced he has issues with how BLS disseminates information to users and was ordering a fix, that would have been welcome. Instead, Trump steps on his own dick.
It's not as bad as you imply here, but the thing that is more irksome is that Trump complained about the 818k downward revision in August 2024 (which one could argue gave Powell cover to cut interest rates by 50 points in September, right before the election...) so the optics would have been better for him to have fired her on 1/20/2025 simply as part of a swamp draining exercise. But a .4 revision is certainly justification for firing now as it's a number that is at the tail of a standard deviation. Your goal as director of BLS should be to never allow that to happen on your watch.
I would agree with "it's not as bad as you imply here" had he fired her for the reason you state. But per usual, he can't control his mouth. He fired her with the accusation that she personally made the change "in order to make me look bad." That's a lie, as no director can single-handedly change all the data needed to make anybody look good or bad. Moreover, it's libel and slander for which she could sue him, as slandering an employee does not fall in his job description for president. A few more million tax dollars wasted in legal fees because he can't shut up.
The BLS reporting systems needs an overhaul to avoid these gyrations. That does not equate to "in order to make me look bad."
Agree on Trump's foolhardy language.
Yeah, sadly. He'd accomplish a lot more if he'd think before he speaks and quit throwing gasoline on fires.
It might be slander unless there’s more. Like ‘go ahead and sue, and we get a good look at what they’ve been up to’.
I don't think BLS has been "up to" anything except working with a system that has design flaws baked into it. It would be useful to examine the data collection system and come up with a better way to distribute, perhaps by publishing data only after the first revisions are in.
In my opinion he slandered her by claiming she cooked the books to make him look bad. That's an outrageous accusation on which she should collect.
we shall see. maybe too much 'baking' going on. but i bow to your best judgment.
No surprise Trump can’t control his mouth.
It just doesn't work that way. The commissioner only hears what the numbers are the day before release, if that. By that time, the data is loaded and embargoed in the publishing system.
The BLS commissioner is the only political appointee and doesn't access any of the systems used in calculating or publishing the data. People that high up are in meetings all day with their SES-ers, DOL higher-ups, and public engagements.
Yes, all this. Once again, he throws an innocent under the bus because he can't be bothered to know anything or ask questions before he acts.
If a politically appointed commissioner doesn’t have to answer for mistakes, why exactly does there need to be a commissioner? How many politically appointed commissioners are we paying huge salaries? Just asking.
So basically BLS should stop releasing *initial* estimates and should only release finalized data three months later. Got it.
If you also look at the Biden years every month had a revision of the previous month and two month’s employment numbers. The whole Biden presidency was bullshit as far as labor stats go. All the while they were feeding “their oligarchs” inside information. Any wonder how Pelosi keeps making those winning trades? Other members of congress too but her winning streak is unmatched by Warren Buffet or Ray Dalio or Steven Cohen.
According to Karoline Leavitt in a press briefing I watched recently, Nancy had a 70% return on her investments, beating Warren Buffett's 30 something percent. She doesn't even try to hide it, saying in a CNN interview when pressed, that her husband is in charge of all of that, as if that makes it better. I haven't heard many talking about the app created to follow her husband's trades, that my son loosely follows. In my fantasy world, she would have to donate all earnings amassed from this money during her entire time in Congress to a worthy cause or several causes, or to the government to pay down the debt a little. So corrupt.
Pelosi responded, "This is America" when challenged on Congress being allowed to trade
Didn't they make a movie about this?? Of course they did and it was a comedy. What a surprise that deep staters with "knowledge" would leak information to the big money people.
The movie I thought of while reading this great piece was 1976 ‘Network’ and in particular that powerful ‘The World is a Corporation’ scene.
Ned Beatty acting was off the charts good…
“The world is a business, Mr. Beale”
RE Super users:"It was an idiosyncratically collected group of emails of people"...and we stopped doing it WHEN WE GOT CAUGHT. There, fixed it for them...
"I have to give McEntarfer credit for some fantastic, institutionalized bullshit there!" Yes. "Idiosyncratically collected" is now officially on my list of favorite gaslighting phrases!
And I'm sure that the employee in question idiosyncratically got a higher-paying job at one of those banks afterward.