Unpacking the Unexpected: Why Recent US Job Numbers Were Revised Downward and What It Means for Trump Supporters

Job Numbers and Recent Changes: What You Need to Know

Recently, President Donald Trump made headlines by firing the head of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). This came after the BLS downgraded job numbers by over 250,000. Trump claimed these figures were “rigged” to make his administration look bad, but revisions like these aren’t unusual—they happen under both Democratic and Republican leaders.

Understanding Job Figures

Typically, the BLS estimates job numbers using two major surveys. One collects data from around 60,000 households, while the other taps into 121,000 private and public sector employers. These numbers are reviewed by the BLS Commissioner, who doesn’t get involved in compiling them.

Katharine Abraham, a former BLS Commissioner, noted, “The commissioner doesn’t control what the numbers are.” This insight highlights the independence of the BLS from political influence.

How Are Job Estimates Recalculated?

The BLS uses both surveys to create estimates, which they revisit in the following months. Revisions are essential because they provide a clearer view of the job market. The estimates are revised to reflect more complete data, which often means the initial numbers can shift significantly. In fact, recent revisions for May and June showed the most significant changes since the early pandemic days.

For context, in 2023, the average monthly adjustment for job figures has been about 57,000 since 1979. However, during turbulent economic periods, larger revisions are likely. For example, the financial crisis in 2008 saw adjustments exceeding 100,000 often.

Response Rates and Data Reliability

A troubling trend is the decrease in response rates for these surveys. Many American firms are less likely to provide data now than they were a decade ago, with some surveys dropping below a 43% response rate. Other countries have faced similar issues. Despite these challenges, a review from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco found that recent revisions were consistent with past trends, offering some relief about data reliability.

Historical Perspective

Drawing from history, revisions have often caused political stirrings. Under Obama, job gains for 2009 were reduced by 902,000, marking one of the largest annual revisions recorded. These kinds of shifts can highlight the economic environment’s unpredictability, especially as new tariffs and other policies affect job markets.

Conclusion

Understanding job figures and their revisions is crucial, especially in a complex economic landscape. As changes occur, keeping an eye on reliable data and historical context can help navigate the narrative surrounding job markets.

Source link