Shoot the messenger

[Wrestleknownothing]

This is pretty dumb on so many levels. Some might say this is "a level of dumb, the likes of which has never been seen."

Oh, and petty, too.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/01/trump-erika-mcentarfer-jobs-report-fired.html

If you do not like the numbers just fire the person in charge of assembling the numbers, but only after you cut the size of their department and make it harder to assemble the numbers. After all Trump has zero interest in accuracy, only advocacy.

If you are not faking the numbers in his favor, then you have to go. The only sin that cannot be forgiven is the appearance of not licking his boots. 

Mind you, nowhere does Trump say any numbers were faked, just that if you are Donald Trump these numbers do not push his narrative, so they must be fake. There can be no other explanation. You know, 'cause the narrative is always the truth.

Oh, and he just created some more unemployment in the process. Doh.

[ionel]

Data wizards beware! 

 

Yes I heard that and thought it sounded rather dumb.  

Edited 22 hours ago by ionel

[red viking]

It's unbelievable. He obviously did this without even looking at the data himself. There are some wingers that will just go along with him and assume that the person fired " must have" had a liberal agenda and fabricated the data. Hopefully that's only the most extreme wingers like @JimmySpeaks

Gives me a slight amount of hope for the wingers that not too many of them are supporting this move

Edited 21 hours ago by red viking

[headshuck]

Is this accurate? What a mess!


The Bureau of Labor and Statistics job revisions shows wildly inconsistent employment data. How could anyone keep a job with this record?

2022: +568K jobs added after benchmark (Mar 2022 vs. prior estimate) Despite a +568K adjustment in 2022, the next 1 million+ jobs were effectively erased by later revisions.

Apr 2023–Mar 2024: –818K jobs revised downward

May–June 2025: net revision of –258K jobs (May: +144K→+19K; June: +147K→+14K)

[Caveira]

She didn’t fake job #s for Kamala pre election to make her look better?

[red viking]

9 minutes ago, headshuck said:

Is this accurate? What a mess!


The Bureau of Labor and Statistics job revisions shows wildly inconsistent employment data. How could anyone keep a job with this record?

2022: +568K jobs added after benchmark (Mar 2022 vs. prior estimate) Despite a +568K adjustment in 2022, the next 1 million+ jobs were effectively erased by later revisions.

Apr 2023–Mar 2024: –818K jobs revised downward

May–June 2025: net revision of –258K jobs (May: +144K→+19K; June: +147K→+14K)

 

You can only be so accurate so close to after the month ends. Some data comes in early and some comes in later. These are always estimates based upon the data that's available. Then it's revised later as more lagging data comes in. It's a very simple process and unfortunate thst you drink his kool and and assume another liberal conspiracy based upon nothing more than trumptards hasty accusation. 

 

[red viking]

1 minute ago, Caveira said:

She didn’t fake job #s for Kamala pre election to make her look better?

Zero evidence of that. What a dumb accusation. 

[red viking]

Here come the dumb wingers just making assumptions bases upon trumptards baseless accusations. Jobs data has ALWAYS been revised in later months as new data comes in. 

This is unreal. Can't make up this level of stupidity.

[Caveira]

56 minutes ago, red viking said:

Zero evidence of that. What a dumb accusation. 

I’m sure you’re close enough to the matter to know. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, headshuck said:

Is this accurate? What a mess!


The Bureau of Labor and Statistics job revisions shows wildly inconsistent employment data. How could anyone keep a job with this record?

2022: +568K jobs added after benchmark (Mar 2022 vs. prior estimate) Despite a +568K adjustment in 2022, the next 1 million+ jobs were effectively erased by later revisions.

Apr 2023–Mar 2024: –818K jobs revised downward

May–June 2025: net revision of –258K jobs (May: +144K→+19K; June: +147K→+14K)

 

It would help if you took the time to understand how the numbers are produced, and have been produced since at least 1979, wherein companies report figures to the BLS who produces an initial estimate based on initial reports and then revises the initial estimate twice, each a month apart as more companies report their numbers to the BLS. The number of companies reporting generally grows by almost 1/3 between the 1st and 3rd estimate. Economists and market practioners have always known this. It is only with politicians trying to use the numbers to gain votes, and playing fast and loose with the facts (a twitter specialty), that you get the current idiocy. The odds Trump understands this are just about zero. 

[mspart]

yeah seems pretty petty.   However, in his first term he had  a number of folks in the admin trying to sabatoge him at every turn so if she was there when Biden was there, it is a kneejerk reaction.   I don't have too much interest in this but she should have known it might be coming if she was there during Biden's term.  

By the way her last name, McEntarfer, is very close to my last name.   I wonder if her people are from Glen Noe Scotland  like mine are.    I just looked it up and it appears it is the case.  

mspart

 

[headshuck]

Why would recent administrations, the media and analysts put so much stock into the data if they know this? Are the swings from initial numbers to final numbers much greater recently?

[red viking]

19 minutes ago, headshuck said:

Why would recent administrations, the media and analysts put so much stock into the data if they know this? Are the swings from initial numbers to final numbers much greater recently?

They swing higher or lower but the initial numbers are still a helpful approximation of where it will end up. It ends up where it ends up and we are nowhere close to any elections so there's no incentive to fabricate the data. 

[red viking]

This is actually a big problem. By firing the messenger,it sends a message to the entire administration to not report anything that makes Trump look bad. 

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, red viking said:

This is actually a big problem. By firing the messenger,it sends a message to the entire administration to not report anything that makes Trump look bad. 

It’s almost the end of the world.  Probably.

[Offthemat]

8 minutes ago, Caveira said:

It’s almost the end of the world.  Probably.

Women and children hardest hit. 

[Caveira]

2 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Women and children hardest hit. 

There have been no administrations before that fibbed about anything like being able to think…. Or am I a vegetable.   Or is the boarder closed.  Or *idenomics lol.   I can’t believe they fired a Biden appointed person.   The sky is falling *}*##^^}^{^}^}*#. 

[red viking]

3 minutes ago, Caveira said:

There have been no administrations before that fibbed about anything like being able to think…. Or am I a vegetable.   Or is the boarder closed.  Or *idenomics lol.   I can’t believe they fired a Biden appointed person.   The sky is falling *}*##^^}^{^}^}*#. 

Name one administration that fired people simply for reporting data that made President look bad. 

The hypocrisy of the wingers is unreal. This would have been like Biden firing people because they reported the high inflation that occurred in 2021. 

Edited 16 hours ago by red viking

[Wrestleknownothing]

59 minutes ago, headshuck said:

Why would recent administrations, the media and analysts put so much stock into the data if they know this? Are the swings from initial numbers to final numbers much greater recently?

I already answered that. Politicians always promise more jobs if elected, this makes Trump look bad. Almost as bad as he made himself look by firing the statistician claiming it was because of her partisan politics when it is really because of his partisan politics. This is a pattern with Trump. Whatever he accuses someone of is the thing he is guilty of.

And yes, revisions this size do happen. Mostly in volatile times. It happened during Trump's last term, only more so due to COVID, and early in Biden's term. Greater than 100k for either the first or second revision is not normal, but it is also not unheard of.

Trump does not want to believe that his own economic policies could be to blame, that on again / off again tariffs make it hard for businesses to make long-term plans like hiring, or that mass deportations may have an impact on employment. And maybe they are not to blame, but introspection is not his strong point any way. Find someone else to blame and fire them, that is where he excels.

Edited 16 hours ago by Wrestleknownothing

[headshuck]

Name one administration that fired people simply for reporting data that made President look bad. 
The hypocrisy of the wingers is unreal. This would have been like Biden firing people because they reported the high inflation that occurred in 2021. 

Well, you typically don’t get fired if you make your boss look good.

[Caveira]

13 minutes ago, red viking said:

Name one administration that fired people simply for reporting data that made President look bad. 

The hypocrisy of the wingers is unreal. This would have been like Biden firing people because they reported the high inflation that occurred in 2021. 

Obama and Clinton.  

[red viking]

Just now, Caveira said:

Obama and Clinton.  

Be specific. What data and who was fired? 

[Caveira]

Just now, red viking said:

Be specific. What data and who was fired? 

I don’t need to be specific.  They did too.  Regan and Nixon too.   

[red viking]

Just now, Caveira said:

I don’t need to be specific.  They did too.  Regan and Nixon too.   

You're a liar. The norm for wingers. 

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, red viking said:

You're a liar. The norm for wingers. 

What did I lie about ?    I also never voted for Trump in any of his 3 runs. 

Edited 16 hours ago by Caveira