Historic Jobs Data Mistake Undermines Trust in Economic Reporting

1. 84

   Sharlee01posted 14 hours ago

   Rewriting the Numbers: Job Growth Historically Overstated, Data Shows.
   
   
   The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released a preliminary annual benchmark revision showing that the U.S. economy added about 911,000 fewer jobs in 2024, President Biden’s final year in office, than earlier payroll reports indicated. This was a crucial year that would reflect the type of economy he was preparing to pass on to the next administration, and the data now appears badly skewed. The revision, which the BLS acknowledged as the largest downward adjustment on record, lowers average monthly nonfarm payroll gains from roughly 147,000 to about 71,000 for the 12 months ending in March 2025. According to the BLS, the adjustment comes from comparing its monthly survey estimates with more comprehensive employer records submitted through state unemployment insurance programs.
   https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
   
   The sector-level changes in the preliminary revision were substantial. Leisure and hospitality employment was revised down by about 176,000 jobs, professional and business services by about 158,000, and retail by roughly 126,000; trade, transportation and utilities also showed large downward adjustments. The BLS says these benchmark revisions are routine: each year it “benchmarks” its sample-based monthly payroll estimates to the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), which is derived from administrative tax records covering most employers. The preliminary estimates will be finalized and incorporated into official historical series in February 2026
   https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
   
   Economists and market analysts described what the numbers imply for the state of the labor market and for policy. James Knightley of ING said the revision “means labor market momentum is being lost from an even weaker position than originally thought,” a comment widely reported in coverage of the release. Other economists cautioned that the BLS birth-and-death model (used to estimate jobs from new and closing firms) is a key source of uncertainty during turning points in the economy, and that administrative QCEW data can itself be revised. Several analysts noted the revision is large but preliminary, and urged caution about extrapolating beyond March.
   https://apnews.com/article/jobs-economy … 824ffe0fd5
   
   Political leaders and administration officials immediately reacted to the revision, and those reactions have become part of the public record. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters the revision “vindicated” the administration’s criticisms and argued it showed the economy was weaker than previously described; that comment has been carried in mainstream reporting. At the same time, outside groups and nonpartisan economists warned against politicizing the statistical process and urged support for BLS independence and funding to maintain reliable statistics.
   
   The BLS and many statistical experts emphasize two technical facts that shape interpretation: first, the monthly jobs series is sampled from about 121,000 businesses and 631,000 worksites and is therefore subject to sampling error and estimation methods; second, the annual benchmarking step corrects the monthly series by aligning it with near-comprehensive payroll tax records (QCEW), which typically produce more accurate counts but are subject to their own reporting lags and later revisions. Because the preliminary benchmark is an early reconciliation and the final benchmark arrives next February, analysts say the headline revision is important but not the final word on historical job growth.    https://www.reuters.com/business/us-pay … 025-09-09/
   
   Market and policy implications were highlighted immediately: some market participants said the revision strengthens arguments for Federal Reserve rate cuts, while others noted inflation readings and other indicators remain central to Fed decisions. Economists also noted that the revision changes the retrospective picture of how strongly hiring was running in 2024 and early 2025, an input into assessments of labor slack, wage pressures, and monetary policy timing, but that current and forward-looking indicators will ultimately drive near-term decisions.
   
   What we know so far is therefore this: the BLS’s preliminary annual benchmarking indicates 911,000 fewer payroll jobs for the year ending March 2025 than earlier estimates suggested; the adjustment materially weakens the retrospective portrait of job growth in 2024–early 2025; the changes stem from the reconciliation between the monthly employer survey and administrative payroll records and from uncertainty in the birth-and-death estimation; and reactions have ranged from calls for institutional accountability to appeals for preserving the independence and funding of the statistical agency while the final benchmark is completed in February 2026. For the official counts and technical documentation, the BLS release and the QCEW files remain the primary sources.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 14 hours agoin reply to this

      Ahh, come on Sharlee, now we question the BLS? Does the excuses never end for Trump coming up short? BLS reporting has been conducted the same way over decades, now because Trump is in the crosshairs we question methods and procedures?

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Willowarborposted 3 hours agoin reply to this

      Funny, this benchmarking has happened every year for nearly the last 100 years.... AND NOW IT'S A PROBLEM HUH?

      replyreport
2. 84

   Sharlee01posted 14 hours ago

   Now I Play The "What If " Game... A game that is well known here on this forum.
   
   
   Were the Jobs Numbers “Cooked” for Kamala Harris?
   
   The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has just dropped a bombshell: the U.S. economy added 911,000 fewer jobs in the year 2024, 2024 ending March 2025, than previously reported. The revision, the largest of its kind on record, cuts average monthly job growth in half, from 147,000 down to just 71,000. By BLS’s own explanation, this revision comes from reconciling its monthly employer survey with more complete payroll tax records that surface only after a very long lag. On paper, the process is routine. In practice, the size of the downward adjustment is anything but.
   
   What this means is that the story Americans were told about a resilient labor market through 2024 and early 2025 was built on shaky ground. Entire sectors, such as leisure and hospitality, professional and business services, retail, were overstated by hundreds of thousands of jobs. As ING economist James Knightley put it, the revision “means labor market momentum is being lost from an even weaker position than originally thought.” That kind of understatement matters when policymakers, businesses, and families base their decisions on BLS data.
   
   Now comes the harder question: was this just an honest statistical error, or something more deliberate? While revisions happen every year, the sheer magnitude here raises eyebrows. Kamala Harris, running at the top of the Democratic ticket, leaned heavily on strong job numbers as proof the economy was “turning the corner.” Rally after rally, the administration painted a picture of solid growth and opportunity a message reinforced by the monthly jobs reports that everyone assumed were reliable. Those numbers now look far less trustworthy.
   
   Here is where feasibility comes in. The BLS’s monthly reports are based on survey samples and models, including the controversial “birth-death” adjustment that tries to estimate jobs created by new firms. These methods are vulnerable to assumptions, and assumptions can be tweaked. The lag between monthly estimates and the eventual benchmarking against payroll records creates a window of time where inflated numbers can circulate unchecked. If there were ever a tool to quietly tilt public perception without leaving fingerprints, this would be it.
   
   No direct evidence has surfaced that the Biden–Harris administration pressured the BLS to overstate employment. But the alignment is politically convenient: upbeat job headlines during the campaign, a massive correction only after votes were cast. That coincidence alone is enough to fuel public skepticism. Even if the BLS acted in good faith, the perception of possible manipulation undermines trust, and once trust is gone, confidence in government statistics is hard to rebuild.
   
   At a minimum, this episode underscores the need for transparency, oversight, and accountability. Congress should demand answers about how such a wide gap emerged between preliminary reports and later corrections. And Americans deserve an explanation for why they were sold a narrative of strength that evaporated under scrutiny.   
   
   The Harris campaign reaped the benefits of glowing jobs reports when it mattered most. The truth, it seems, was postponed until after the fact. Whether this was a statistical failure or a political convenience, the damage is the same: confidence in one of the nation’s most important economic barometers has been shaken, and the suspicion that the books were cooked will not fade quickly.
   
   In the end, from my perspective, I’ve had a front-row seat watching the Democrats attempt some truly vile ploys. So when it comes to playing the “what if” game, I can honestly say there is absolutely nothing I’d put past them to attempt.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      wildernessposted 14 hours agoin reply to this

      What a surprise - that government reports err on the side of greater support for the party in power!
      
      (Do you not think the numbers are not being "cooked" just as badly or worse in favor of Trump?  There is no doubt in MY mind that they are.)

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Willowarborposted 12 hours agoin reply to this

         You've got a long way to go in proving that there was any attempt to politicize the numbers... In any event, we just see the economic indicators further sliding in the wrong direction under Trump.

         replyreport
      2. 84

         Sharlee01posted 11 hours agoin reply to this

         "(Do you not think the numbers are not being "cooked" just as badly or worse in favor of Trump?  There is no doubt in MY mind that they are.)" Dan
         
         Well, if they are, they’re definitely heading in the wrong direction—LOL. I would tend to say no. Yes, President Donald Trump replaced the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics on August 1st, right after a really bad jobs report was released. I did question the high jobs reported through 2024, but there were no facts to open my big mouth—LOL. In my view, the questionable reporting likely stopped once Trump took office, perhaps because the previous leadership realized their tenure could be coming to an end. I mean, just look at the 2024 to March 2025 reports, astronomically high. The year stood out like a sore thumb, one could say. This woman most likely felt that the 2024 stats would be looked at by the new administration, which appears to have been done.
         
         In my view, the stats that Trump has had look pretty normal when compared historically. So, I don't think they were being skewed under Trump.   If they are skewed, they are going in the wrong direction.
         
         Plus another part of my reasoning is ---Looking at historical data, the jobs numbers reported under President Trump generally align well with the unemployment rates at both the national and state levels. For example, when payroll reports showed strong job growth, unemployment rates tended to drop or remain very low, consistent with a tightening labor market. Conversely, periods of slower job growth corresponded to small upticks or plateaus in unemployment. This pattern reflects what we typically see in U.S. labor statistics historically: payroll gains and unemployment rates move together, because both measure different aspects of labor market health. In contrast, under some other administrations, discrepancies appeared where reported job gains did not seem to match changes in unemployment, raising questions about accuracy. Under Trump, the historical consistency suggests that the jobs reports were a reasonably reliable reflection of actual labor market conditions.  So I think for the most part, the books were not cooked.
         
         Looking back, the initial job numbers reported for 2024 through March 2025 were clearly overstated. When you compare them to the unemployment rates, they didn’t line up historically. Typically, strong job growth is mirrored by falling unemployment, and weaker growth by stable or rising unemployment. But the previously reported payroll gains were much higher than what the unemployment trends suggested, which was a signal that the numbers were inflated or inconsistent with normal labor market behavior.
         
         Trump was handed a weaker economy than the books suggested. I actually feel he is bringing the economy back, though not as quickly as I would like. Still, I’m now seeing some reasons for the pace that I hadn’t recognized before. 
         
         Inflation at 2.7  versus 3.0, I will take it... Unemployment steady and within norms --- I will take it.   
         
         Under President Trump’s second term, wage growth has been evident across nearly all major sectors. Blue-collar workers saw real wages rise about 1.4% over the first seven months of 2025, marking one of the fastest increases for the start of a new term. Healthcare added roughly 64,000 jobs per month, with average hourly earnings up 4.4% year-over-year. Professional services and retail both saw wage growth of about 3.5% over the same period. Manufacturing workers earned an average of $35.50 per hour in August 2025, although growth was modest with only a 10-cent increase from the previous month. Construction, mining and logging, and transportation and utilities all had average hourly earnings in the $39–$41 range, with slight month-to-month fluctuations. Overall, these numbers suggest that Trump’s policies are contributing to broad-based wage growth, even if some sectors are seeing slower or incremental gains.
         
         Hey, as you see, I am liking what I see, and I love talking economics --- But I have gone on too long--- I just know it!

         replyreport
         1. 77

            wildernessposted 3 hours agoin reply to this

            I wasn't meaning economic numbers specifically, but stats in general.  Inflation, for instance; there is zero doubt in MY mind that we are being fed a load of BS in those numbers.  There was zero doubt in my mind that the number of COVID deaths was skewed badly, indicating more than happened.  I think it comes with being in government; one must make it look far better than it is (or worse, depending on which party you are and which will benefit).

            replyreport
      3. 73

         Ken Burgessposted 11 hours agoin reply to this

         The Biden Administration... the worst ever... at everything... in the Nation's history.  Other than perhaps Buchanan ... Wilson... definitely top 5 worst Presidents.
         
         The things done during his four years put the final nails in the coffin... it would be a miracle of miracles if when Trump's four years are up America is sitting pretty on the world stage and economically... and we aren't in a global war that everyone admits is such.
         
         Damned shame too... its going to put a cabosh on so many things... from Space X's Mission to Mars to AI driven robot girlfriends so real you can only tell the difference by the fact that they are loving and supportive.

         replyreport
3. 61

   Willowarborposted 12 hours ago

   So if the numbers were weaker than originally accounted for.. does that change the fact that Trump has not improved upon them at all? In fact he has weakened them further...

   replyreport