Posted by ceejayoz 17 hours ago
https://s.abcnews.com/images/US/NationalDebt_v02_DP_16843391...
> In yet another troubling sign for the labor market, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said that it revised down the prior two months by a combined 103,000. May’s jobs total was cut by 66,000 to 129,000 total jobs added, while June’s total was lowered by 37,000 to a total gain of 57,000.
It looks to me like a failure of the American media landscape, that such constant revisal trends are not called out in the reporting of new numbers. That just makes them a mouthpiece of the government.
I'd suspect better computing helps a lot here.
https://xcancel.com/ernietedeschi/status/1951721848393105573
Still waiting. Just find me one article that says "Last months BLS jobs were revised higher".
For a concrete example, as you request: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/05/jobs-report-may-2026.html
> In addition to the strong jobs numbers for May, revisions for prior months also presented an even better picture. The April tally represented an upward revision of 64,000, while March got a boost up to 214,000, a gain of 29,000.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/06/business/economy/trump-jo...
> What has been unusual during the early months of Mr. Trump’s term is that the revisions have been consistently in the same direction: down.
You do not know how to read a graph, it seems.
ADP Payrolls are a lower latency indicator but not quite as broad.
Is it the case that the numbers always appear more optimistic, and then are revised to be more pessimistic values? Or is it just that the original numbers are off and are revised? Does that make sense?
Chart: https://xcancel.com/ernietedeschi/status/1951721848393105573
And for good reason! These are surveys. The easiest respondents are those saying “no change.” The latest responses, the ones who had the biggest change. In a booming economy, the biggest changes will be hires. In a troubled one, the biggest changes will be those doing lay-offs.
Add to that: the BLS tries to correct for this effect. Which means at the moment the economy turns, its corrections skew the wrong way. (On the whole, per the above chart, the figures are getting better over time.)
Economics is an imperfect science.
Private-sector jobs: +58,000 jobs [wealthprof...ssional.ca], [retail-insider.com]
Government/public-sector jobs:-27,000 jobs (a decline) [wealthprof...ssional.ca], [retail-insider.com]
Self-employed: +44,000 jobs [wealthprof...ssional.ca], [retail-insider.com]
Part-time jobs: +36,600 jobs [money.usnews.com], [ca.finance.yahoo.com]
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
It doesn't mention the right to make a buck, though it's probably implicit.
Your average rationalist techie would consider a "belief" to be some factual statement about the world, backed up with some justification, with some confidence level. "Tariffs help the economy" would mean some probabilities about likely outcomes for different actions, based on some kind of economic theory that explains why those actions make those outcomes more likely. We'd put this statement in the same category as something like "Joe works at Acme, Inc."
(And yes, I know that rationalist techies will still have plenty of irrational beliefs. But this is what we typically consider a belief to be, even if we don't always live up to it.)
But for a lot of people, it's something different. It's more of a pronouncement of faith, or a declaration of allegiance, or an expression of will. It's almost like a prayer. Pronouncing a belief like "tariffs help the economy" isn't a factual statement about likely outcomes, but more of an attempt to sway reality through faith.
So is the theory that they don't say it because they actually believe it, they say it because they want YOU to believe it? Or is it that they believe it just because they wish it were true?
It's a real belief, but it's a different kind of belief. A rationalist belief has structure behind it, even if only implied. There's a whole framework of, you believe X, what would it look like if X were true, or what would it look like if X were false? What's the basis for thinking that X true? How confident are you? What would change your mind? But for the kind of belief I'm talking about, none of that is there. It's not that it hasn't been done or that it's not sufficiently rigorous, but that it's just not even a consideration. It's not part of the concept of believing something.
I remember it being like that was I was a child and one day realizing that it didn't have to be, that I could decide for myself what I believed in. Maybe some folks never have that realization?
And preliminary Q2 GDP numbers look very good, it appears the technical recession is most likely over (TBC once the final Q2 release is firmed up at the end of the month). Just two negative growth quarters when your southern neighbour has threatened to annex you by "economic force" is pretty damn good.
Lateral Thinkers: quietly sipping tea, nursing our wounds from layoffs, lamenting another unheard Cassandra moment.
Basically sums up the mood, I find. Don’t worry, we’re always steeping a fresh pot for the new club members when stories like these hit the wire.
Higher unemployment makes it harder to raise interest rates.
