Trump says he doesn't trust the jobs data, but Wall Street and economists do
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
The monthly jobs report is already closely-watched on Wall Street and in Washington but has taken on a new importance after President Donald Trump on Friday fired the official who oversees it. Trump claimed that June's employment figures were "RIGGED" to make him and other Republicans "look bad." Yet he provided no evidence and even the official Trump had appointed in his first term to oversee the report, William Beach, condemned the firing of Erika McEntarfer, the director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics appointed by former President Joe Biden. The firing followed Friday's jobs report that showed hiring was weak in July and had come to nearly a standstill in May and June, right after Trump rolled out sweeping tariffs.Economists and Wall Street investors have long considered the job figures reliable, with share prices and bond yields often reacting sharply when they are released. Yet Friday's revisions were unusually large - the largest, outside of a recession, in five decades. And the surveys used to compile the report are facing challenges from declining response rates, particularly since COVID, as fewer companies complete the surveys.Nonetheless, that hasn't led most economists to doubt them."The bottom line for me is, I wouldn't take the low collection rate as any evidence that the numbers are less reliable," Omair Sharif , founder and chief economist at Inflation Insights, a consulting firm, said.Many academics, statisticians and economists have warned for some time that declining budgets were straining the government's ability to gather economic data. There were several government commissions studying ways to improve things like survey response rates, but the Trump administration disbanded them earlier this year.Heather Boushey , a top economic adviser in the Biden White House , noted that without Trump's firing of McEntarfer, there would be more focus on last week's data, which points to a slowing economy."We're having this conversation about made-up issues to distract us from what the data is showing," Boushey said. "Revisions of this magnitude in a negative direction may indicate bad things to come for the labor market."Here are some things to know about the jobs report:Economists and Wall Street trust the data Most economists say that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a nonpolitical agency staffed by people obsessed with getting the numbers right. The only political appointee is the commissioner, who doesn't see the data until it's finalized, two days before it is issued to the public.Erica Groshen, the BLS commissioner from 2013 to 2017, said she suggested different language in the report to "liven it up", but was shot down. She was told that if asked to describe a cup as half-empty or half-full, BLS says "it is an eight ounce cup with four ounces of liquid."The revised jobs data that has attracted Trump's ire is actually more in line with other figures than before the revision. For example, payroll processor ADP uses data from its millions of clients to calculate its own jobs report, and it showed a sharp hiring slowdown in May and June that is closer to the revised BLS data.Trump and his White House have a long track record of celebrating the jobs numbers - when they are good.These are the figures Trump is attacking Trump has focused on the revisions to the May and June data, which on Friday were revised lower, with job gains in May reduced to 19,000 from 144,000, and for June to just 14,000 from 147,000. Every month's jobs data is revised in the following two months.Trump also repeated a largely inaccurate attack from the campaign about an annual revision last August, which reduced total employment in the United States by 818,000, or about 0.5%. The government also revises employment figures every year.Trump charged the annual revision was released before the 2024 presidential election to "boost" Vice President Kamala Harris's "chances of Victory," yet it was two months before the election and widely reported at the time that the revision lowered hiring during the Biden-Harris administration and pointed to a weaker economy.Here's why the government revises the data The monthly revisions occur because many companies that respond to the government's surveys send their data in late, or correct the figures they've already submitted. The proportion of companies sending in their data later has risen in the past decade.Every year, the BLS does an additional revision based on actual job counts that are derived from state unemployment insurance records. Those figures cover 95% of U.S. businesses and aren't derived from a survey but are not available in real time.These are the factors that cause revisions Figuring out how many new jobs have been added or lost each month is more complicated than it may sound. For example, if one person takes a second job, should you focus on the number of jobs, which has increased, or the number of employed people, which hasn't? (The government measures both: The unemployment rate is based on how many people either have or don't have jobs, while the number of jobs added or lost is counted separately).Each month, the government surveys about 121,000 businesses and government agencies at over 630,000 locations - including multiple locations for the same business - covering about one-third of all workers.Still, the government also has to make estimates: What if a company goes out of business? It likely won't fill out any forms showing the jobs lost. And what about new businesses? They can take a while to get on the government's radar.The BLS seeks to capture these trends by estimating their impact on employment. Those estimates can be wrong, of course, until they are fixed by the annual revisions.The revisions are often larger around turning points in the economy. For example, when the economy is growing, there may be more startups than the government expects, so revisions will be higher. If the economy is slowing or slipping into a recession, the revisions may be larger on the downside.Here's why the May and June revisions may have been so large Ernie Tedeschi, an economic adviser to the Biden administration, points to the current dynamics of the labor market: Both hiring and firing have sharply declined, and fewer Americans are quitting their jobs to take other work. As a result, most of the job gains or losses each month are probably occurring at new companies, or those going out of business.And those are the ones the government uses models to estimate, which can make them more volatile.Groshen also points out that since the pandemic there has been a surge of new start-up companies, after many Americans lost their jobs or sought more independence. Yet they may not have created as many jobs as startups did pre-COVID, which throws off the government's models.Revisions seem to be getting bigger The revisions to May and June's job totals, which reduced hiring by a total of 258,000, were the largest - outside recessions - since 1967, according to economists at Goldman Sachs Kevin Hassett, Trump's top economic adviser, went on NBC 's "Meet the Press" on Sunday and said, "What we've seen over the last few years is massive revisions to the jobs numbers."Hassett blamed a sharp drop in response rates to the government's surveys during and after the pandemic: "When COVID happened, because response rates went down a lot, then revision rates skyrocketed."Yet calculations by Tedeschi show that while revisions spiked after the pandemic, they have since declined and are much smaller than in the 1960s and 1970s.Other concerns about the government's data Many economists and statisticians have sounded the alarm about things like declining response rates for years. A decade ago, about 60% of companies surveyed by BLS responded. Now, only about 40% do.The decline has been an international phenomenon, particularly since COVID. The United Kingdom has even suspended publication of an official unemployment rate because of falling responses.And earlier this year the BLS said that it was cutting back on its collection of inflation data because of the Trump administration's hiring freeze, raising concerns about the robustness of price data just as economists are trying to gauge the impact of tariffs on inflation.U.S. government statistical agencies have seen an inflation-adjusted 16% drop in funding since 2009, according to a July report from the American Statistical Association "We are at an inflection point," the report said. "To meet current and future challenges requires thoughtful, well-planned investment ... In contrast, what we have observed is uncoordinated and unplanned reductions with no visible plan for the future.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
19 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Trump orders NASA to kill 2 satellites that can function for many more years - the reason will shock all
Trump NASA satellite shutdown: The White House has directed NASA to shut down two carbon-tracking satellites. These satellites monitor carbon dioxide levels. The satellites provide crucial data for understanding climate change. Scientists, farmers, and energy companies use this data. One satellite is on the International Space Station. The other will burn up in the atmosphere if shut down. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Satellites Tracking Carbon Emissions To Face Early Shutdown What Are the Orbiting Carbon Observatories? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Former NASA Scientist Raises Concerns What Are the Orbiting Carbon Observatories? Lawmakers Push Back, Call Cuts 'Catastrophic' Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads FAQs A decision that has left many scientists and space lovers scratching their heads is that the White House has ordered NASA to shut down two important satellites that are still working perfectly and could keep doing so for years, as per a report. These satellites track carbon dioxide levels in Earth's atmosphere, which helps to understand climate change and how it affects everything from farming to energy industries, as per a Futurism Trump administration's officials have reached out to NASA to draw up plans for terminating the two missions, called the Orbiting Carbon Observatories , as reported by Futurism. Both of them have been used to collect widely used data, which provide information to oil and gas companies and farmers about the distribution of carbon dioxide and how it can affect crop health, according to the READ: When is Labor Day 2025 in US and what should you know before celebrating? One of the satellites is attached to the International Space Station, and the other is collecting data as a stand-alone satellite, as reported by Futurism. The latter would see its permanent demise after burning up in the atmosphere if the mission gets terminated, according to the Trump administration's move to end the missions comes at a time when the two observatories had been expected to function for many more years, and a 2023 review by NASA found that the data they'd been providing had been "of exceptionally high quality," as reported by review also found that the observatories give detailed carbon dioxide measurements across various locations, which let scientists get a detailed glimpse of how human activity is affecting greenhouse gas emissions, according to the READ: Another Indian-American shakes up Silicon Valley - Meet Shyam Sankar, Palantir's CTO powering company's meteoric rise An ex-NASA employee, David Crisp, who worked on the Orbiting Carbon Observatories' instruments, revealed that current staffers reached out to him, saying, "They were asking me very sharp questions," adding, "The only thing that would have motivated those questions was [that] somebody told them to come up with a termination plan," as quoted by explained that it "makes no economic sense to terminate NASA missions that are returning incredibly valuable data," pointing out that it costs just $15 million per year to maintain both observatories, which is a small fraction of the agency's $25.4 billion budget, as reported by other scientists who have used data from the missions have also been asked questions about terminating the missions, as per the the two observatories are just two of dozens of space missions that are currently facing existential threats due to the Trump administration's proposed 2026 fiscal year budget, according to the reasons for terminating these missions are not known yet, but there is only speculation given US president Donald Trump's staunch climate change denial and his administration's efforts to deal the agency's science directorate a potentially existential blow, as per the has led many scientists to argue that the move could precipitate an end to the United States' leadership in space, according to the Futurism report. Many lawmakers have also drawn up a counteroffer that would keep NASA's budget almost in line with this year's budget, as per the and top appropriator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) had siad in a July, "We rejected cuts that would have devastated NASA science by 47 percent and would have terminated 55 operating and planned missions," as quoted in the representative and Committee on Science, Space and Technology ranking member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) said thar, "Eliminating funds or scaling down the operations of Earth-observing satellites would be catastrophic and would severely impair our ability to forecast, manage, and respond to severe weather and climate disasters," adding, "The Trump administration is forcing the proposed cuts in its FY26 budget request on already appropriated FY25 funds. This is illegal," as quoted in the Futurism farmers, environmentalists, energy companies, anyone needing detailed carbon emission will burn up in the atmosphere, and the other will stop collecting data, ending their missions prematurely.
Scroll.in
22 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Trump's revised tariffs will reduce GDP of several countries, including the US
The global rollercoaster ride of United States trade tariffs has now entered its latest phase. President Donald Trump's April 2 'Liberation Day' announcement placed reciprocal tariffs on all countries. A week later, amid financial market turmoil, these tariffs were paused and replaced by a 10% baseline tariff on most goods. On July 31, however, the Trump Administration reinstated and expanded the reciprocal tariff policy. Most of these updated tariffs are scheduled to take effect on August 7. To evaluate the impact of these latest tariffs, we also need to take into account recently negotiated free trade agreements (such as the US-European Union deal), the 50% tariffs imposed on steel and aluminium imports, and tariff exemptions for imports of smartphones, computers and other electronics. For selected countries, the reciprocal tariffs announced on April 2 and the revised values of these tariffs are shown in the table below. The revised additional tariffs are highest for Brazil (50%) and Switzerland (39%), and lowest for Australia and the United Kingdom (10%). For most countries, the revised tariffs are lower than the original ones. But Brazil, Switzerland and New Zealand are subject to higher tariffs than those announced in April. In addition to the tariffs displayed above, Canadian and Mexican goods not registered as compliant with the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement are subject to tariffs of 35% and 25% respectively. Economic impacts The economic impacts of the revised tariffs are examined using a global model of goods and services markets, covering production, trade and consumption. A similar model was used to assess the impacts of the original reciprocal tariffs and the outcome of a US-China trade war. GDP impacts of the tariffs are displayed in the table below. The impacts of the additional tariffs are evaluated relative to trade measures in place before Trump's second term. Retaliatory tariffs are not considered in the analysis. An economic own goal The tariffs reduce US annual GDP by 0.36%. This equates to US$108.2 billion or $861 per household per year (all amounts in this article are in US dollars). The change in US GDP is an aggregate of impacts involving several factors. The tariffs will compel foreign producers to lower their prices. But these price decreases only partially offset the cost of the tariffs, so US consumers pay higher prices. Businesses also pay more for parts and materials. Ultimately, these higher prices hurt the US economy. The tariffs decrease US merchandise imports by $486.7 billion. But as they drive up the cost of US supply chains and shift more workers and resources into industries that compete with imports, away from other parts of the economy, they also decrease US merchandise exports by $451.1 billion. Global impacts For most other countries, the additional tariffs reduce GDP. Switzerland's GDP decreases by 0.47%, equivalent to $1,215 per household per year. Proportional GDP decreases are also relatively large for Thailand (0.44%) and Taiwan (0.38%). In dollar terms, GDP decreases are relatively large for China ($66.9 billion) and the European Union ($26.6 billion). Australia and the United Kingdom gain from the tariffs ($0.1 billion and $0.07 billion respectively), primarily due to the relatively low tariffs levied on these countries. Despite facing relatively low additional tariffs, New Zealand's GDP decreases by 0.15% ($204 per household) as many of its agricultural exports compete with Australian commodities, which are subject to an even lower tariff. Although the revised reciprocal tariffs are, on average, lower than those announced on April 2, they are still a substantial shock to the global trading system. Financial markets have been buoyant since Trump paused reciprocal tariffs on April 9, partly on the hope that the tariffs would never be imposed. US tariffs of at least 10% to 15% now appear to be the new norm. As US warehouses run down inventories and stockpiles, there could be a rocky road ahead.
The Wire
22 minutes ago
- The Wire
Trump Considering Hiking 25% Tariff on India ‘Very Substantially' in Next 24 Hours
He also said that New Delhi's ostensible offer to lower its tariffs to zero is 'not good enough' if it keeps buying Russian oil. New Delhi: US President Donald Trump has reiterated his intention to levy a tariff on Indian goods 'very substantially' higher than the 25% he announced last week, repeating his stance that he is unhappy with India's purchases of Russian oil even as Moscow continues its war with Ukraine. In an interview to CNBC Television on Tuesday (August 5), Trump also claimed that while New Delhi has agreed to charge 'zero tariffs' on American goods, its offer is 'not good enough' as long as it continues to buy oil from Russia. A day prior, Trump had said he would 'substantially raise' his 25% tariff on India – scheduled to go into effect on Thursday – because it was 'not only buying massive amounts of Russian Oil' but selling much of this 'on the Open Market for big profits', drawing a rejoinder from the Ministry of External Affairs , which pointed to Washington as well as the EU's continuing economic links with Moscow. Speaking to CNBC, Trump said on Tuesday that he was considering raising his 25% tariff on India 'very substantially over the next 24 hours' because of its purchases of Russian oil. 'So we settled on 25%, but I think I'm gonna raise that very substantially over the next 24 hours, because they're buying Russian oil, they're fuelling the war machine. And if they're going to do that, then I'm not going to be very happy,' he told the channel. Adding that India's tariffs on the US were too high, the president continued: 'Now I will say this. India went from the highest tariffs ever–they will give us zero tariffs … But that's not good enough, because of what they're doing with oil.' Trump on July 30 announced that India would pay a 25% tariff as well as a yet-undisclosed 'penalty' for buying energy and military equipment from Russia. This levy was to kick off two days later, but the executive order Trump signed deferred the date of its implementation to August 7. In a post on his Truth Social platform on Monday, Trump blamed India for not caring 'how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine', adding that because of its dealings with Moscow he would be 'substantially raising the tariff paid by India to the USA'. New Delhi, which had stuck to its cautious approach to the issue when Trump announced the tariff and also went on to call India's economy 'dead', responded by accusing Washington and Brussels of 'targeting' India in an 'unjustified and unreasonable' manner. Charging the US with 'actively encouraging' its imports of Russian oil shortly after Moscow's invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, the Ministry of External Affairs pointed to the US as well as the EU's continuing trade with Russia in various sectors after the latter's invasion began. 'In this background, the targeting of India is unjustified and unreasonable. Like any major economy, India will take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security,' it said in a statement. Citing the US's trade deficit with India as well as the latter's high tariffs, Trump had unveiled a 26% 'reciprocal' tariff on India earlier this year but deferred it pending the completion of negotiations over a trade deal. Talks pursuant to that deal are ongoing but New Delhi's resistance to opening up its dairy and agricultural sector to America is reportedly a sticking point. There is no sign of a deal yet even as Trump has claimed on more than one occasion that India has agreed to lower its tariffs. Bilateral ties have also taken a hit amid Trump's repeated claims – consistently denied by India – that he mediated a ceasefire to the Indo-Pakistani military conflict in May by using trade with the two countries as leverage. The perception of a tilt towards Pakistan was reinforced when Trump hosted a luncheon for Pakistan's army chief , Field Marshal Asim Munir, and more recently taunted India after finalising a trade deal with Islamabad that includes the development of its 'massive' oil reserves. Meanwhile, India since 2022 has emerged as a top buyer of Russian crude oil – which has come under heavy sanctions from the US and its allies. Russia now accounts for nearly 40% of India's oil imports, while Delhi is currently Moscow's second-largest buyer after China. The tariffs have also cast a cloud over the two sides' burgeoning defence partnership. This article went live on August fifth, two thousand twenty five, at fifty-nine minutes past nine at night. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
