Remember, this will cause the stock market to go up because we're ruled by psychos.

Do not talk about killing them. You’ll be banned.

Weaker than who thought? Uninformed people?

The stock market won't mean much.

Weaker than they wanted us to think.

Definitely don't acquire any firearms.

It means everything to those with money and the temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

We should NOT have another Luigi!

Lmao you dumb motherfukers

No, it will cause it to go up because of the Federal Reserve mandate. The Fed has to weigh inflation against employment. If employment numbers are bad, the Fed cuts rates which makes it:

1. More cheap for companies to borrow
2. Less attractive for investors to hold bonds

Unless a rate hike is deemed necessary despite a weak job market due to the bond yields... JPow always mentioned the dual mandate, but I wonder which of them is more important right now.

You can barely even disagree with non-voters on most of the main .world communities or you’ll be banned.

I’ve seen you get banned in the same thread as me. 🤜🤛

Yeah. .world’s politics community has gone to shit. They’re too afraid to upset .ml so they won’t do what’s necessary to shut down these non-voting trumpets.

If the dems actually get some oversight I wonder if we will find out how revised this economy actually needs to be from the BLS manipulations.

Maybe we’ve been in a heavy recession since the start of this year? Longer?

I've never understood why they even release those numbers when they do. They always get revised. Always. And with this administration, you can't even trust the revisions.

no way lol, if anything there's another hike incoming

SAN FRANCISCO, Oct 14 (Reuters) - The Federal Reserve will probably need to increase short-term interest rates further to ‌rein in too-high inflation, San Francisco Federal Reserve President Mary Daly said on Wednesday, but she signaled there is no need to do so at the US central bank's October 27-28 meeting.

Not at all surprising.

These assholes sit there and lie through their teeth, constantly, about "Biden's economy". No surprise they'd like about the situation under the donnie dumbfuck regime.

Right that it still tilts that direction, but it is true that they will lower rates to try to improve employment if employment looks bad, as a general point of strategy. Currently inflation is so bad that even this bad news doesn't really move the needle in this case.

Honestly asking workers about their ability to get a raise or a new job and you would have discovered how weak labor (and the labor market) is right now.

You can tell the Fed doesn't know what to do given they keep pretending inflation is tied to economic activity and not trade wars and actual wars.

In a normal world the Fed would be calling on the President or Congress to enact policy to curb inflation since its a type of inflation the Fed has no control over, but no one seems to want to call Trump on all the damage he's been doing.

Aaking about the opinions of workers is too close to socialism for most economists.

Been jobless since June, having a masters doesn’t help. 200+ applications and only 12 declines.

Field?

Maybe in 2010 but I could argue that's now how it works today.

those 800k arnt STEM/health or tech jobs thats for sure. could be "farm produce picking jobs"

So there was a planned hike, but due to the revision there isn't going to be one. So how is that not good news for the stock market? It was bracing for the hike

How does it work today?

bad job employments are usually very hazardous to incumbent politicians, and the associated party. thats why its always cooking the books.

yup most people cant pivot, if they are in FT near or somewhat above min wage.

which field? tech? some people havnt been getting job for 1-3years, masters reduces your job field by alot.

Not to beat a dead horse but isn't AI a huge chunk of the US economy right now? The same AI that needs to make more money than exists on earth to justify its expenditures? My bet would be longer and the balance sheet looks worse than any of us can imagine.

It was actually clear right then and there that the numbers were no longer reliable, when Trump fired the head of the statistics agency because he didn't like the job market figures, right?

It’s possible! I’d love to see the actual data if it even still exists!

IT, I’ve been at director level for six years.

IT. I don’t see how a masters would reduce your chances…

We know. We know because we are down here living it. Not up there faking and not up there reporting it.

I don't need a director. I just need a guy who can hum a few tunes other than vendor jockey.

The Way a business sees it, someone with a masters has a lower possible 'minimum pay' because of the masters so they will often times not hire someone with a masters because they are "overqualified" and the company doesn't want to pay that position that much

Capitalist economics is based on wishes and unicorn farts. Its entire point is to justify an unjustifiable system. If you want to learn how economies actually work, study Marx.

And then watch Democrats get blamed for it

Ah damn, that is a tough one. I'll keep an eye out in my network and see if anything pops up.

I do have a friend who used to be an IT Director and ended up moving into a TAM role at AWS (I give him crap for it, but I understand taking care of his family). Don't know if that's an option at all.

You're right about the dual mandate, that's the traditional mechanism: weak jobs, rate cuts, stocks up. And honestly, that plays right into what Trump wants anyway. Bad job numbers give the Fed cover to cut, which is exactly what he's been demanding. But I think the mandate is being overpowered now.
Trump wants rates at 1% or lower. He's a real estate guy who built his career on cheap debt, and he's openly said the oil industry is "making a freaking fortune" off high gas prices and "I don't give a damn." That tells you whose interests come first.
Cheap money flows into assets, and the hottest asset right now is AI, controlled by a handful of tech billionaires who lined up behind this administration. When jobs disappear, their investors read it as proof AI is working, and stocks climb. The market isn't following the Fed's mandate anymore, it's following capital's story....
So in my view, the people outwardly pulling the strings are the asset owners: oil, tech, real estate, and the administration serving them. Bad news for workers is good news for them. That's what I mean by psychos.
Okay, get your tinfoil hat? This next part is pure speculation, but what if...
What if pressuring the Fed isn't just about donors, but part of something bigger? Trump calls Canada the 51st state, wants Greenland, and talks about owning the Western Hemisphere. His envoys are real estate and investment guys holding repeated meetings with Putin about joint business deals, while he waives Russian sanctions.
My theory... there's been a kind of modern Yalta, where the big strongmen quietly carve the world into spheres. The Fed is one of the last independent institutions standing in the way, so it has to be bent. Cheap money pumps up the assets the ruling circle owns. The Iran war drives up oil, which enriches Russia and US oil, hurts Europe, and squeezes ordinary Americans. A squeezed, destabilized population is easier to push around. Every piece of the pattern is there for this... and the people winning is pretty clear.

This has absolutely nothing to do with that, and the commissioner also has absolutely no control on any numbers that come out of the BLS, only the language in final reports. There's not some magic "cook the books" button the commissioner can push, anyway. This is an org with thousands of employees and hundreds of automated programs and processes that can't just be changed willy nilly, with monitored databases and backups upon failsafes and legions of bureaucrats who would absolutely scream to high heaven if there were even a whisper of a hint of manipulation. You can't have a conspiracy with thousands of statistics nerds who swear an oath to be impartial. You just can't.

And anyway, there are ALWAYS jobs revision numbers. In times of expansion, they're usually revised upwards, and in times of contraction they're usually revised downwards. This is only (financial) news because it happens, not because it's a surprise. Everyone could have predicted this, and indeed when you read articles before ethe revisions come out they often mention the upcoming revision. The surprise is usually the magnitude, not usually the direction and certainly not the fact that there is a revision.

This is just caused by the structure of the employment survey, where bigger firms answer the questions faster but smaller firms usually take longer to get their answers in due to not having dedicated staff, ease of gathering the numbers, or long standing procedures - take your pick. Those same smaller firms are also the ones most likely to be affected by swings in the economy, so in times of expansion are more likely to be hiring, and in uncertain or downswing times, are more likely to have lower hiring or lower growth. But the initial numbers assume things are more or less steady until they get official responses in, and then revise to the more accurate numbers. So big nothing burger from a reliability of statistics standpoint, this is just the choice made between having accurate statistics three months late, or kinda accurate statistics a month late that are then revised to be be more accurate.

As for this report, the only news here is that job growth is still sluggish, confirmed by stats - not that there's some grand conspiracy because people don't take the time to understand how things actually work. Being complicated or obtuse doesn't mean it's corrupt. It means you're out of your element.

That is literally how unemployment is measured in the US. These are employment numbers, which are different than unemployment. You're either wildly uninformed or spreading FUD. Stop.

Totally reasonable question. The question is would you rather have very accurate numbers three months late, or fairly accurate numbers barely a month late? That's the calculus, and in the current era of a complete lack of trust in government, there's...kind of an argument for three months late, but really businesses and the public overwhelmingly want the numbers earlier and can adjust based on predictions of revisions (which they do), so one month it is. Plus, these are very old programs and the publishing procedures have been set for quite a long time.

I'd caveat though that there is absolutely no reason you can't trust these numbers. See my comment above in this thread about reliability of BLS statistics. In an era where there are legions of former public health officials who quit and blow the whistle on things happening in that sector, I'm not sure what makes people think that a bunch of statistics nerds wouldn't do the same thing. Plus, as the ostensibly pro business side, Republicans like accurate Principal Federal Economic Indicators at least as much as Democrats. Who do you think uses these stats?

It means you're out of your element.

I am. Absolutely.
But since I don’t know anything about it, I have to take what the press tells me at face value for now (that’s the crux of the matter with the media and their power). My impression, based on press reports, is that the data has become less reliable and, in particular, runs counter to Trump’s promises. As I said, I don’t know anything about the subject and, like everyone else, form my opinion based on the information I receive. It’s true that we’re in a political bubble here, and that probably leads to a bias on my part.
Since you seem to know more about this: Please take a look at the figures from recent years and see if there’s a trend in the magnitude of the difference between preliminary and final figures, if you’d like. That would provide a better answer to the question than my opinion alone.

I’d like to disagree with part of the rest of your comment: It’s true that bureaucratic systems are, and should be, somewhat resilient to direct political influence from the current administration. But here’s the thing: At the start of Trump II, Trump fired a lot of federal officials and replaced them with loyalists (again, this is just my opinion based on the news I’ve been following). If you systematically fill key positions in the system with your own people, you can influence the results (this is once again very evident in my country right now, as the current Ministry of Economic Affairs is now publishing “scientifically sound” reports that in some cases directly contradict the previous ones). Statistical analyses can be unambiguous, but as soon as interpretation comes into play, there’s room for maneuver.
Second, leadership can directly influence the methods used. The results are still statistically sound, but, for example, a modified data set or method creates room for maneuver (whether this constitutes manipulation actually depends on the research question and, if applicable, the political stance). If I’m not mistaken, for example, the agency that calculates the inflation rate in the U.S. changed its methodology during Trump’s second term and now uses fewer actual price data and more modeling (please correct me if I’m wrong). The selection of the consumer basket is another factor that can be adjusted.
I therefore cannot agree with your statement (as I understand it) that bureaucratic agencies and institutions are, by their very structure, fundamentally resilient and immune to manipulation.

If you're willing to share more...

What facet of IT? Software Dev, Architecture, Networking, ops, DB, storage, Security?

I can say we're in a bit of a down cycle on the Infra side. Still getting new jobs, but fewer, and the technology partners are evolving a bit. Broadcom stabbing its customers in the back has been good for business for orgs that want to migrate away.

Well to your first point, you can go yourself to their website. Everything is public, and they even have a handy page just on revisions: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm

Secondly, Trump did not fire anyone other than the commissioner, and did not replace anyone at the BLS. They lost a ton due to DOGE and the DRP, but were under a hiring freeze until recently. You can check USA jobs for past listings.

And yes, while leadership could theoretically push certain measurements or methodologies that might skew things in a certain direction, again, at the BLS that functionally can't be done without a large hue and cry. The commissioner has very little say in program methodologies. Erica Groshen, a former commissioner, is extremely active on social media and often mentions how if there were anything out of the ordinary rank and file would go nuts. You can imagine that's true given the org has people on both political sides, and gets accused by the other party's supporters of cooking the books no matter who is in charge, even though methodology changes extremely slowly and is always published online.

To that matter, I am unaware of any changes to inflation measurements during Trump 2, other than I think alternative data sources (e.g. getting datasets from companies/third parties rather than measuring prices at a store), but I'd have to go dig through their methodology publications, which are all wide open and public in the website as well.

The takeaway here is that there is so much sunshine on all of these processes and data it's functionally impossible for the stats to be a lie. Even earlier reporting this year that imputations (estimating data they can't physically measure) were way up was still way below the margin of error, and that alone was a huge "scandal". That was down to the Trump admin starving them of money and staff, and guess what happened a few months later? Suddenly they're hiring again, because I assume Republicans behind the scenes got pissy about less accurate data, even if it didn't actually change anything except the measures of accuracy.