Be afraid, be very afraid. From the WSJ article:
Five weeks after President Trump fired the chief of the agency that gathers the country’s labor and price data, his advisers are preparing a report laying out alleged shortcomings of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ jobs data, according to people familiar with the matter.
The report takes a critical look at the BLS and lays out a historical overview of the agency’s jobs-data revisions, they said.
The administration is considering publishing the study, written by the Council of Economic Advisers, in the coming weeks, according to these people.
If this forthcoming report is anything like its analysis of the OBBB (critique here), I suggest running for the hills.
As an aside, if we were to use a CENSUS (and willing to wait eight months for the numbers), then one would find that 0.8% y/y growth rate through December 2024, vs. 1.3% in the CES series. Using the CPS based series adjusted to the NFP concept (which was pushed by Republicans angered by the slow employment growth recorded after the 2001 recession), the growth rate was 0.9%. In other words, precise measurement of COVERED employment leads to lower estimated employment growth.
By the way, NABE is alarmed as well:
The National Association for Business Economics (NABE) – the global professional association of 3,000 business economists, applied economists, and data scientists – stands firmly with the dedicated economists and statisticians at BLS and across the federal statistical agencies. BLS staff are singularly focused on accuracy and quality, even in the face of funding cuts, falling survey response rates, and changes in the structure of the economy.
“The administration is considering publishing the study, written by the Council of Economic Advisers”
Also know as the council of economic toadies.
The QCEW was even worse than originally thought.
For all of 2024, about 500,000 fewer jobs were created than we thought based on the monthly payroll series. But even at the end of 2024, on a year over year basis employment grew by about 1.4 million, or 0.9%. These are final numbers.
Then in the first quarter of this year, comparisons fell off a cliff again. On a *preliminary* basis, only about 675,000 jobs were added, or an increase of only 0.4%. These are not seasonally adjusted numbers, so although we can only estimate what the seasonally adjusted monthly change would be in the first three months of this year, preliminarily the 333,000 gain in payrolls turns into a -12,000 *decline*.
Ouch!
The goal, of course, is to cast doubt on BLS jobs data before those data begin to show declining employment. The trend toward decline was clear before the QCEW release that New Deal democrat cites. The QCEW data reinforce what the felon-in-chief wants to obscure, that employment is weakening under his policies, which means having to cast even more doubt on the data.
“Time” reports that this is the largest revision on record, which one the one hand gives the felon ammunition for his criticism of BLS, but on the other hand undercuts his “the economy is doing great so the Fed should cut rates” baloney:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/job-growth-much-weaker-reported-175308621.html
The rate-cut part obviously isn’t baloney. The priced-in modal estimate for the year-end funds rate now represents 75 basis points of easing from the Fed vs 50 bps a week ago.
The QCEW revision are all over the press and will surely end up on the evening news. The felon’s intention to focus voter attention on crime rather than the economy just got harder, so his crazy will get worse. Meteorologist warn of heavy tweet storms for several month.
Interesting piece on employment and wages of economists: “Labor Day 2025: The Great Crash (of the Economists)”
https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/labor-day-2025-the-great-crash-of-the-economists
Galbraith explores the gap between labor market theory and reality.