Last edited:
US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians
- Thread starter SeniorFuckFace
- Start date
- Status
Sekirodiealot
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2019
I can't wait to see the EC do it's thing and trump wins
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2022
Imagine coming in second place to Skibidi Biden in the cringe election.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2024
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2020
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2020
NGL, probably the funniest outcome of this election would be for Trump to win the popular vote but lose the EC. But the best would undeniably be for Trump to win the popular and EC vote, just so that we could make fun of all the #notmypresident types who crawl back out of the woodwork for election denial.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2018
adin ross is like some zoomer god, that can't hurt. Theo Von had Bernie sanders on maybe a week before. To me it feels like he's just getting his message out to an untapped segment of voters, and that's always good. That Theo Von one was very impressive, I have been plugged in to trump since 2016 and i've never heard him give a chill interview like that. If people see him as something other than ORANGE CHEETOLINI BAD MAN it makes them maybe look into him a little bit more.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2024
I hope Trump wins the popular vote, the electoral college, and flips a bunch of states red just so we can get hypernatremia.
Although, if that happens, I will legitimately worry about certain posters on this website.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2020
It might be sufficient criteria for a few more posters to eat ten times their bodyweight and metamorphose into new Fatrick clones.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2024
I do love me some shawarma.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2022
I missed this last week. "The numbers aren't fake, they're just made up off a bad model!" isn't quite the own against Trump they think it is.
How Wonky US Payroll Revisions Became Controversial
Bloomberg (archive.ph)
By Augusta Saraiva
2024-08-22 21:01:00GMT
How Wonky US Payroll Revisions Became Controversial
Bloomberg (archive.ph)
By Augusta Saraiva
2024-08-22 21:01:00GMT
The US created 818,000 fewer jobs in the year through March than initially estimated — the largest downward revision in 15 years, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said on Aug. 21. While those adjustments usually fly under the radar, the recent figures have caused a commotion — both on Wall Street and in Washington DC. Former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, has claimed that the early estimates were fabricated and the Biden administration “defrauded the people of our country.” But while the adjustment was a big one, the revisions are part of a decades-long, albeit confusing, exercise aimed at achieving a more accurate picture of the labor market.
What caused the commotion?
It’s rare that a preliminary benchmark revision to payrolls gets attention outside the economics community but interest in the report gained immense traction on Wall Street and in politics. First, there were forecasts for a steep decline. The actual figure reaffirmed bets US central bankers will begin lowering interest rates soon.
With the November presidential election drawing closer, Trump leaned on the figures to cast doubt on the integrity of the Biden administration and its economic record.
Adding to the confusion, the agency responsible for the report failed to publish the figures until well after the 10 a.m. release time. That prompted economists from at least three Wall Street banks to call the BLS for the number. A scramble ensued, with other firms and media outlets, including Bloomberg News, trying to obtain the figures, too.
How do payroll revisions work?
The monthly payrolls data that the BLS publishes every month comes from a establishment survey of some 119,000 employers representing nearly 630,000 workplaces throughout the US — which accounts for about a third of all US jobs.
This sample of employers is benchmarked once a year primarily to information from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages program that collects data from states’ unemployment insurance tax records. The figures that were just released are the agency’s preliminary benchmark estimate — the final numbers for that period are due in February.
While the QCEW represents more than 95% of US employers, the drawbacks are that it is a less timely data source and subject to revisions itself.
What explains the discrepancy?
In addition to the smaller sample size, the BLS employment data also relies on a so-called “birth-death model” — an adjustment the agency makes to the data to account for the net number of businesses opening and closing. Some economists argue that adjustment has been off due to pandemic-related distortions. According to Anna Wong of Bloomberg Economics, the main reason for the inaccuracy of nonfarm payrolls are outdated assumptions in the agency’s model. “We estimate the birth-death model contributed half of the downward revisions,” she wrote.
Is there more to it?
Because the QCEW report is based on unemployment insurance records — which undocumented immigrants can’t apply to — the data are likely to have excluded some unauthorized workers that were included in the initial payroll estimates. However, the biggest revisions came from white-collar sectors that are less likely to employ undocumented immigrants, which suggests the impact from immigration was smaller than some economists had anticipated.
Was the size of the revision unusual?
While Wednesday’s data marked the largest revision since 2009, previous prints have also been noteworthy. In 2019, the figures were revised down by more than half a million payrolls.
There have also been sizeable upward revisions in recent years. The BLS undercounted payrolls by nearly half a million in 2022 when the economy was recovering from the pandemic. And in 2006, the upward revision was over 800,000.
Other government surveys are also routinely revised, and the numbers often change as more responses are collected. Response rates have been declining for years — especially since the pandemic — which can negatively affect the quality of the data and make them prone to larger revisions.
How do the revisions change our understanding of the labor market?
The revisions suggest the labor market started moderating much sooner than originally thought, while reaffirming it remains relatively healthy. Assuming the changes are distributing proportionately throughout the year, the figures indicate the US added some 174,000 jobs every month — compared to 242,000 before. That’s still above the pre-pandemic average.
What does that mean for the Federal Reserve?
The Fed was already on track to start lowering interest rates in September before the revisions came out. Now that inflation has largely subsided, the figures are likely to give policymakers further assurance that it’s prudent to start easing policy before the labor market cools too much. “We see little impact on Fed policy,” wrote Aditya Bhave at Bank of America Corp. “It won’t be spooked by news that the labor market was ‘solid’ rather than ‘strong’ last year.”
What about Trump’s fraud accusations?
It’s not the first time GOP members have accused a Democratic administration of cooking the books when it comes to the labor market. Under President Barack Obama, they argued the government was favoring an unemployment metric that made the economy look better. Democrats traded similar accusations when Republicans in Congress rewrote the way the economic effects of legislation are measured.
But there’s no evidence the BLS figures are fraudulent. If anything, the discrepancy between the early estimates and the revision comes from the agency’s methodology not being able to capture the unique post-pandemic dynamics as well.
— With assistance from Mark Niquette and Molly Smith
What caused the commotion?
It’s rare that a preliminary benchmark revision to payrolls gets attention outside the economics community but interest in the report gained immense traction on Wall Street and in politics. First, there were forecasts for a steep decline. The actual figure reaffirmed bets US central bankers will begin lowering interest rates soon.
With the November presidential election drawing closer, Trump leaned on the figures to cast doubt on the integrity of the Biden administration and its economic record.
Adding to the confusion, the agency responsible for the report failed to publish the figures until well after the 10 a.m. release time. That prompted economists from at least three Wall Street banks to call the BLS for the number. A scramble ensued, with other firms and media outlets, including Bloomberg News, trying to obtain the figures, too.
How do payroll revisions work?
The monthly payrolls data that the BLS publishes every month comes from a establishment survey of some 119,000 employers representing nearly 630,000 workplaces throughout the US — which accounts for about a third of all US jobs.
This sample of employers is benchmarked once a year primarily to information from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages program that collects data from states’ unemployment insurance tax records. The figures that were just released are the agency’s preliminary benchmark estimate — the final numbers for that period are due in February.
While the QCEW represents more than 95% of US employers, the drawbacks are that it is a less timely data source and subject to revisions itself.
What explains the discrepancy?
In addition to the smaller sample size, the BLS employment data also relies on a so-called “birth-death model” — an adjustment the agency makes to the data to account for the net number of businesses opening and closing. Some economists argue that adjustment has been off due to pandemic-related distortions. According to Anna Wong of Bloomberg Economics, the main reason for the inaccuracy of nonfarm payrolls are outdated assumptions in the agency’s model. “We estimate the birth-death model contributed half of the downward revisions,” she wrote.
Is there more to it?
Because the QCEW report is based on unemployment insurance records — which undocumented immigrants can’t apply to — the data are likely to have excluded some unauthorized workers that were included in the initial payroll estimates. However, the biggest revisions came from white-collar sectors that are less likely to employ undocumented immigrants, which suggests the impact from immigration was smaller than some economists had anticipated.
Was the size of the revision unusual?
While Wednesday’s data marked the largest revision since 2009, previous prints have also been noteworthy. In 2019, the figures were revised down by more than half a million payrolls.
There have also been sizeable upward revisions in recent years. The BLS undercounted payrolls by nearly half a million in 2022 when the economy was recovering from the pandemic. And in 2006, the upward revision was over 800,000.
Other government surveys are also routinely revised, and the numbers often change as more responses are collected. Response rates have been declining for years — especially since the pandemic — which can negatively affect the quality of the data and make them prone to larger revisions.
How do the revisions change our understanding of the labor market?
The revisions suggest the labor market started moderating much sooner than originally thought, while reaffirming it remains relatively healthy. Assuming the changes are distributing proportionately throughout the year, the figures indicate the US added some 174,000 jobs every month — compared to 242,000 before. That’s still above the pre-pandemic average.
What does that mean for the Federal Reserve?
The Fed was already on track to start lowering interest rates in September before the revisions came out. Now that inflation has largely subsided, the figures are likely to give policymakers further assurance that it’s prudent to start easing policy before the labor market cools too much. “We see little impact on Fed policy,” wrote Aditya Bhave at Bank of America Corp. “It won’t be spooked by news that the labor market was ‘solid’ rather than ‘strong’ last year.”
What about Trump’s fraud accusations?
It’s not the first time GOP members have accused a Democratic administration of cooking the books when it comes to the labor market. Under President Barack Obama, they argued the government was favoring an unemployment metric that made the economy look better. Democrats traded similar accusations when Republicans in Congress rewrote the way the economic effects of legislation are measured.
But there’s no evidence the BLS figures are fraudulent. If anything, the discrepancy between the early estimates and the revision comes from the agency’s methodology not being able to capture the unique post-pandemic dynamics as well.
— With assistance from Mark Niquette and Molly Smith
Someguyiknow
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2021
Can he even vote? Isn’t he a convicted felon?
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2018
They are at least smart enough to realise how important Musk is, and the actual power he has. FFS they basically had to prostrate themselves to him to save the two astronauts trapped in space. let the simpletons on x seethe on x about musk.
Reminds me a lot of a year or so ago when all the brainlet nafo faggots were crying about starlink, and how musk was ripping off ukraine by having the audacity to want to be paid for the terminals. I remember some ukraine's official coming out and telling them in not so many words to shut the fuck up, that elon was doing so much to help.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2020
That's my favorite part. All these people are stuck on X. They tried Mastodon and even Bluesky (lol) but are stuck in their own hell. Love it.
holyhandgrenade
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2023
never convicted his cpu goddess and autism powers allowed him to walk free among us
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2018
To be fair, aren't Blusky and Mastodon so utterly convoluted that even conservatives don't use them? Due to both being built with the forever blocking criticism crowd in mind as opposed to those who just want a Twitter clone?
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2013
Republicans should just do an ad saying “Harris is supported by Chris Chan, a man who raped his own mother.”
It would be the most effective ad in US history.
It would be the most effective ad in US history.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2020
hahah
@MirrorNoir And yes, nobody really uses them at all. The left wanted to, but they're basically super niche and dead.
@MirrorNoir And yes, nobody really uses them at all. The left wanted to, but they're basically super niche and dead.
holyhandgrenade
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2023
It's probably also been discussed already but Obunga made a drumpf dick joke during his dnc speech
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2021
Perhaps she is okay for her age, but let’s be honest - she is NOT this:
THAT is turbo-simping for someone who is old and definitely not beautiful.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2023
“When republicans go low, we go high!”
- Status