Labor Department Revises the Biden/Harris Job Numbers……..Down!

[Jackie S]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksa...vernment-says/

One of the Kamala Harris talking points, (ie, lies), is the touting of “job Growth”.

Well, it seems the big lie is now being turned around, by over 800,000 jobs.

The Swamp is trying its best to make Harris/Biden look good, but it is like pouring perfume on a pig. Sooner or later the truth will come out.

Of course, this is just another big lie being perpetrated by Kamala as she tries to rebrand. Lie after lie after lie. She is beginning to make Joe abide n look like an amateur

How does she keep track.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksa...vernment-says/

One of the Kamala Harris talking points, (ie, lies), is the touting of “job Growth”.

Well, it seems the big lie is now being turned around, by over 800,000 jobs.

The Swamp is trying its best to make Harris/Biden look good, but it is like pouring perfume on a pig. Sooner or later the truth will come out.

Of course, this is just another big lie being perpetrated by Kamala as she tries to rebrand. Lie after lie after lie. She is beginning to make Joe abide n look like an amateur

How does she keep track.

Quite a bit of an exaggeration here. The Bureau of Labor Statistics which compiles these figures regularly revises their numbers. No one here is deliberately lying to anyone.

Are the BLS Employment Numbers Right?
https://trerc.tamu.edu/blog/are-the-...numbers-right/

“While the payroll estimate is the most comprehensive and most precise employment measure we have, we should be aware that the headline number almost always changes. At best, the latest estimate is still a look in the rearview mirror.”

[Salty Again]

... So the revision is 800,000 jobs LESS? ... ...

Crikey! ... I'd also say that's quite a BAD exaggeration.
By those who claimed all the "job growth"...

#### Salty

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... So the revision is 800,000 jobs LESS? ... ...

Crikey! ... I'd also say that's quite a BAD exaggeration.
By those who claimed all the "job growth"...

#### Salty

Got a problem with the numbers then talk to the Bureau of Labor Statistics which compiles the data. If you are going to criticize the process maybe you should try learning how the system works first.

[Unique_Carpenter]

[farmstud60]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Got a problem with the numbers then talk to the Bureau of Labor Statistics which compiles the data. If you are going to criticize the process maybe you should try learning how the system works first.

Most years revisions are 100,000 to 200,000 jobs plus or minus This is the largest revision in I think they said 30 years, might only be 20. So either intentional lie or gross incompetence. Either way they should be fired.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by farmstud60

Most years revisions are 100,000 to 200,000 jobs plus or minus This is the largest revision in I think they said 30 years, might only be 20. So either intentional lie or gross incompetence. Either way they should be fired.

Try reading: MIXED STORY: WHAT THE REVISION TO THE JOBS DATA MEANS
https://cepr.net/mixed-story-what-th...bs-data-means/

It makes a compelling argument for bad data rather than bad intentions.
The BLS is a professional organization. I have serious doubts about intentional lying or gross incompetence.

[farmstud60]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Try reading: MIXED STORY: WHAT THE REVISION TO THE JOBS DATA MEANS
https://cepr.net/mixed-story-what-th...bs-data-means/

It makes a compelling argument for bad data rather than bad intentions.
The BLS is a professional organization. I have serious doubts about intentional lying or gross incompetence.

looks like Marxist economist at a quick glance

[TechPapi]

Originally Posted by farmstud60

looks like Marxist economist at a quick glance

"quick glance"...MARXISM.

Would you mind taking a moment to point out the Marxism you gleaned from that glance of yours?


Note: A quick search shows that you (farmstud) have used the term "marxism or marxist nearly 60 times in the recent past. If I expanded that search to include socialism and communism it would likely comprise about 80% of your recent replies. Clearly that's your goto for anything now.

[farmstud60]

Originally Posted by TechPapi

"quick glance"...MARXISM.

Would you mind taking a moment to point out the Marxism you gleaned from that glance of yours?


Note: A quick search shows that you (farmstud) have used the term "marxism or marxist nearly 60 times in the recent past. If I expanded that search to include socialism and communism it would likely comprise about 80% of your recent replies. Clearly that's your goto for anything now.

LOL, well, what I said is the truth.

[Salty Again]

Originally Posted by TechPapi

"quick glance"...MARXISM.

Would you mind taking a moment to point out the Marxism you gleaned from that glance of yours?


Note: A quick search shows that you (farmstud) have used the term "marxism or marxist nearly 60 times in the recent past. If I expanded that search to include socialism and communism it would likely comprise about 80% of your recent replies. Clearly that's your goto for anything now.

... How does this address the thread topic??

#### Salty

[Salty Again]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Try reading: MIXED STORY: WHAT THE REVISION TO THE JOBS DATA MEANS
https://cepr.net/mixed-story-what-th...bs-data-means/

It makes a compelling argument for bad data rather than bad intentions.
The BLS is a professional organization. I have serious doubts about intentional lying or gross incompetence.

... Try Reading the posts here of Farmstud and Jackie.

... They make a compelling argument for BOTH outright lying
AND gross incompetence. ... Just sayin'

... Hmmmm... Please explain what "Intentional Lying" is.
Is that more or less worse than just plain Lying??

#### Salty

[biomed1]

To Return To And Remain On The Original Topic . . .

#6 - Respect the topics presented by those who start a thread. Attempts to derail a thread or change it's direction is referred to as thread hijack and will be discouraged. Attempts to guide a thread in the right direction are appreciated, while responses to posts which hijack a thread are not.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... Try Reading the posts here of Farmstud and Jackie.

... They make a compelling argument for BOTH outright lying
AND gross incompetence. ... Just sayin'

... Hmmmm... Please explain what "Intentional Lying" is.
Is that more or less worse than just plain Lying??

#### Salty

Salty, The Bureau of Labor Statistics uses data provided to it by companies that file surveys of hiring firing and retention employment data. That data can be wrong but it’s still used anyway.

The staff of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is a professional outfit that does exactly what we want it to do. They produce the data about the economy as best they can in a completely objective way. And they use methods that are completely transparent.

This is what I mean by intentionally lying or misleading. If there is a discrepancy in the numbers it’s not because they are lying, misleading, or incompetent. It means that something in the data they are getting is throwing off the results. Maybe we need to let them correct it rather than assuming that it is some kind of liberal conspiracy or government dysfunction.

[Salty Again]

... As usual, that's a fair-minded view from you, mate.
And you'd surely 'ave a point IF maybe the revision by
the labour people was 60 or 70 thousand.

... But 800,000 is no doubt waaaay beyonde any reasonable or
rational numbers count to be off-by.

... Which is why I do agree with Jackie and Farmstud here.

#### Salty