• LillyPip@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    103
    ·
    1 day ago

    If we stop testing, the numbers will look better.

    If we fire the statistician, the numbers will look better.

    He did this with his business dealings, too – just fudge the numbers (add square footage that doesn’t exist, underestimate costs and overestimate profits).

    This is a well-tread pattern for this moron. What did anyone expect? He doesn’t care about reality, only that the numbers look good for him.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 day ago

      If we shut down Mauna Loa observatory, they can’t update the hockey stick graph anymore and global warming will be solved.

  • vegeta@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    1 day ago

    Go ahead Trump, believe you can gaslight the entire world. Several examples of when faith in fiat is lost.

  • TheFogan@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 day ago

    My one question, the weak jobs numbers make a lot of sense… what on earth caused the crazy inflated past numbers? More I look at it the more confused I get, if she’s fired for being honest, was she dishonest in those projections, or did she have a lack of good data at the time?

    • defunct_punk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 day ago

      I believe the original numbers were posted before the severity of the federal labor force dismissal was tallied. The jobs reports numbers are given as a net gain/loss, and while we had immediate data on how many people had applied for new jobs, the WH was cagey about how many people had been fired. The net gain was adjusted down from a few hundred thousand to just 13,000.

      • jacksilver@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        19 hours ago

        The other side is that tariffs and trade “negotiations” are all over the place. You can’t really integrate that into your model when they’re changing on a day to day basis.

        I suspect that Trump’s screwing with the economy is so bad that it’s messing with their models.

    • tburkhol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 day ago

      These data are released on the first of each month. That’s not a lot of time to tabulate, across all employers across the whole country, all the people hired and fired during the month. That’s why they call the 2 previous months ‘preliminary.’ They’re usually pretty good at estimating, and adjusting their estimates for the usual sources of error, but when conditions change dramatically, those fudge factors aren’t so good.

      So, if you’ve got a President out there making wild, often contradictory claims three times a week, market traders and corporate execs trying to plan based on those announcements, or just put off by the uncertainty, then you should expect ‘preliminary’ statistics to be worse guesses than usual.

    • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      22 hours ago

      You said this in the other thread as well, so I’ll just put my reply from there in here as well:

      Because they amount to less than 10% of the total number (less than 80k).

      You have many more than that in jobs lost due to DOGE, losses in retail due to tariffs, and other markets due to a lack of consumer spending (due to tariffs/inflation primarily).