>The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for May was revised down by 66,000, from +129,000 to
+63,000, and the change for June was revised down by 37,000, from +57,000 to +20,000. With these
revisions, employment in May and June combined is 103,000 lower than previously reported. (Monthly
revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the
last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.)
Keep an eye on the 10 year bond rate. They’ll cut no matter what if it passes 5%. We’re talking trillions of extra interest payments for every 1% rate change, and there’s a fear of runaway rate growth if we pass 5% and people start to fear US insolvency.
If the Fed cuts the overnight rate when they should raise it (due to inflation), it'll increase the 10 year bond rate, not decrease it. Markets know that an artificially low short term rate will drive inflation higher and induce more rate hikes in the future. It's why we saw higher bond rates when the Fed held rather than increase as they were expected to do.
You’re acting like these fundamentals matter anymore.
10yr will go above 5, Fed will cut rates, 10yr will go above 5.5, Trump will blame rising mortgage rates on democrats because his people cut rates, what more can you do, and his base will believe it. Damage will continue to be done until voters fix it in 2028, which might not actually happen.
In the absence of any evidence of politically-driven decisions at the Fed, they deserve the benefit of the doubt. They have taken extremely politically unpopular decisions many times in the past, and they're also perfectly aware that letting inflation get out of control will drive Treasury rates far higher.
The lowest rates over the last several decades have been when the overnight rate was at or near zero. If trump ends the Iran war, inflation will drop but the government is going to become insolvent very quickly if rates go much higher.
The context is key. Rates were low before because inflation expectations pre-COVID were very low, so long term rates were low too. Stopping the war with Iran takes some inflationary pressure off, but it was still higher than ideal before the war and the inflationary pressure from the war doesn't disappear overnight, even if it stopped today.
Inflation was in the mid 2s before the war with all signs pointing to further decline. The bond rate remained elevated regardless as the Fed rate remained elevated.
It hasn’t dipped below 4% in any appreciable way since 2024. Expectations at the end of 2025 and early 2026 were rate cuts thus the expectations of bond rate decline.
The best approach is for the Fed to stand pat and let the mildly restrictive policy continue to drive inflation lower. Labor market is showing weakness but is not falling off the cliff.
Yep. what you describe is akin to what Burns did in the Nixon admin.
Of course, Burns only managed to entrench inflation and mighty-morph it into stagflation because, at the time, inflation was being driven by an energy shock from the middle east.
Since inflation is being propped up by a war, there isn’t really a good choice for the Fed. Raise rates into a softening labor market with war related inflation and increasing bond rates? A very bad choice that will end horribly. Lowering rates to strengthen the labor market and crossing fingers that the war is going to end soon and inflation will drop is more likely imo. Rates will be held steady until one side of the equation starts to accelerate significantly I think.
Inflation at its core is a demographics issue, not a war issue. The neutral rate has been rising since 2019 irrespective of whatever economic calamity might be happening at the time. Demographics is what drives trends in rates over the long term (decades). Retirements outpacing job creation is inflationary.
>Retirements outpacing job creation is inflationary.
lol..So is bailing out failed business owners with stimulus to "save the jobs". Which is the real cause of this issue. The gov is already insolvent. That's why we're trapped with huge annual deficits.
edit: US economists are so stupid, they supported the governement bailing out the worst business owners on the planet. Business owners so stupid, lazy, and incompetent they couldn't be bothered to know what businesses they own. I'm talking of course, about index fund holders.
There is certainly some inflation caused by the war, but people have been using excuses to call inflation transitory for almost 7 years now. The 2010s bond bull market is over. War or not, 5%+ rates are here to stay. Cutting rates because we reached a peace deal would be an awful mistake.
The traditional understanding is exactly the opposite, higher inflation causes higher bond yield, so the government needs to increase key rate to suppress inflation expectations, which will in time lead to lower interest rates on bonds. This is exactly how inflation was brought under control many times in the past.
Erdogan argued for the opposite direction of cause and effect, he said that high key rate directly leads to higher inflation and higher bond yields. We thank him for conducting that experiment on his country.
You can check how that went, and how inflation started to go down only after Turkey went back to traditional methods and raised the key rate.
It’s all about confidence of the future of a country issuing the bonds. We’ve seen bond yields and inflation decouple, like in 2011-12, as the Fed rate was effectively held at zero, bond rates dropped nearly inverse of inflation for a few years. There isn’t a lot of head room for bond rates to rise now that gov debt is outpacing the total gdp. We are in uncharted territory but there really isn’t much higher bond rates the US can handle, thus the yen intervention recently. And as we saw through the ‘10s, low fed rate doesn’t guarantee high inflation. Really, the Iran war was perfectly timed to ensure no right answers for the Fed. It’s just a recipe for stagflation at a time where bond markets are on the brink, and debt continues to soar but the fact remains, at these debt levels, the US can’t service the debt for much longer if bond rates continue to rise.
def not. It can easily print money or raise taxes or cut benefits. Debt spending is 1.x trillion while regular spending is like 7 trillion. Just stopping social security cpi adjustments would basically get the debt to neutral.
Its a social safety net, not a debt. But I personally believe boomers voted for the people that have allowed the debt to ballon like this and they should feel part of the pain not just tax the next generation to do boomer luxury communism.
lmao. israel gets 2 billion dollars a year. Social security is 1.42 TRILLION dollars a year. See that 2 at the end. That 10x the amount israel gets per year
Most monthly jobs reports have overestimated job growth and at a higher rate than is typical going back to 2025. For 2025, mean 1st to 3rd revision was -58,000, unusually high. The only years that had higher mean revisions dating back to 1979 were 2008, 2020, 2021 (the latter being very high positive revisions), all very volatile economic years due to the great recession and covid. This year looked like it might moderate until this report, but we'll need more data on that. Not entirely sure why this trend has occurred. Might be because companies that are laying off tend to return surveys later and with the very weak jobs situation, that's been happening more.
Well there's a greater shortage of those people now than before. Labor department employees now face crininal prosecution if they speak publicly about agency business (in addition to being fired), firing of the Labor head, and Project 2025's goals of creating agencies that are full of loyalists top-down creates perverse incentives.
"Illogical conspiracy" is a poor term when there is plenty of evidence of one. This data may not point to a conspiracy, but you're ignoring a lot of context.
That’s a subtle point. Team MAGA may be pressuring the people they haven’t yet fired across various agencies to lower the outlook so the Fed will issue a rate cut in September and the good folks at Fair and Balanced will jabber about how the economy is roaring back.
Inflation is still probably too high to issue a rate cut without causing even more problems, and even if the Fed did issue a cut, the change wouldn’t produce tangible numbers in time for November…But that’s the kind of hairbrained nonsense that seems to be common from “The Best People” in the current administration.
>For finance reporters like me, there’s usually not much in these reports. But I’m struck today by the drop in employment in “financial activities” — down 14,000 in July and 121,000 since last May.
>We should be around peak numbers there, as banks and other asset managers ramp up hiring in the spring following bonus season departures. As we have reported, there’s widespread reluctance on Wall Street to add too many new bodies in seats in an era of A.I. costs and changes.
A key booming sector net cutting jobs by over 100,000 over a year is just another example of the disconnect between executives/owners and employees on the state of he economy.
The comments about "peak numbers" are silly - the job report is seasonally adjusted to remove seasonal signals. Financial activity employment is in fact at its peak for the year. Losses over the year are fair enough, but the sector's been flat for three years.
Note how different the narrative was when the initial report for May was 172,000 rather than 63,000.
Headlines posted on reddit:
"The U.S. added 172,000 jobs in May and the unemployment rate stayed at 4.3%, a strong showing for the labor market."
"US posts another month of strong job gains in May; unemployment rate steady at 4.3%"
"U.S. employers added 172,000 jobs in May, an unexpectedly strong showing"
Media bears a lot of responsibility in putting too much faith in the initial estimates, particularly when were are just coming off of a year that had a mean revision to initial estimates of -58,000. Rarely is that caveat mentioned.
The media malpractice happening is disgusting. They continue to report as if Mitch McConnell himself says things and is alive despite zero evidence. They report stuff as fact all the time and sanewash everything happening. Nobody should ever believe these job numbers and they’ve all been revised down like 80% but that won’t stop them from addressing that or the fact that every Iran peace talk is completely made up for market manipulation reasons. It’s insane.
The revisions. Barely noticed, but uncover how inaccurate, or contrived, the jobs report numbers really are.
Fed doesn’t have a hard decision to make, contrary to what the message may be. Hiking rates at this time is not a good idea based on hiring data that is bleak, and it’s a years-long story now. On the other hand, we have hit new all time highs in stock markets repeatedly during 2026, sprinkled in with the not-so-rare drop in stocks, usually because a moron with a smartphone decided to tweet something while sitting on the commode.
The revisions, which are the first comment on this post and noticed by anyone who has been reading these reports for more than a couple months, are indicative of the process of surveying the initial numbers. If you know how that survey works, you easily understand that the inaccuracies of the initial numbers are simply a given.
It's a matter of the survey period not aligning with the calendar month reported, plus some lag in responses. That's all. It's not at all contrived, and once they're revised, they are accurate.
It’s also a function of changing employment norms. If everyone worked a normal w-2 job it’d be easy to check, just run a database query. But that’s not the case anymore and the rate of change is only increasing.
The revisions have been unusually large in recent years. Couple that with the rampant dishonesty and fixation on appearance over truth by this administration and suspicion is a natural, and logical, response
In this government filled with pathological liars, revisions are a way to hide the real numbers by sneaking them out as revisions that will get far less headlines than the initial numbers.
But those initial numbers are the ones most noticed, most published, and people in influential positions use them in their messaging.
I’m fully “read-in” on the science/math behind how the numbers are initially delivered, and how they are revised. But I’m not blind to the fact that headlines are weaponized.
I don’t believe they are weaponized I believe they are lagging. When there are periods of growth you see upward revisions and when you have periods of contraction there are downward ones. It’s just how the methodology is since it relies on prior period velocities.
If you go back in those threads, there's plenty of people crowing about how great the economy is and how great the jobs numbers are because they can't be cooked and how naysayers don't understand the economy. Guess what? Real people who are applying for jobs know the jobs market much better than people.
It's grim and it's not because if Ai replacements since Ai isn't there yet. Companies are downsizing based on inflationary costs and making existing employees shoulder a heavier workload. The enshitificication is not sustainable. I don't know what the answer is, but companies need to get back to hiring and paying for expertise with balanced workloads rather than any warm body can do the work of 3 people.
The stock market obviously cares about revisions and, regardless, if the government were putting out misinformation to boost the stock market wouldn't that hurt rich people that are most exposed to the stock market who are buying an asset that's value is being inflated by misinformation and will be due for a correction?
Unless you cash out and short in between the original reporting and the revision. This administration is rife with insider trading. Access to insider information is being sold publicly, even more blatantly now with a higher/faster tier of access on truth social.
BLS has been doing large downward revisions almost every report for a couple of years now. There's something wrong with their methodologies (or they just need to stop reporting initial unemployment numbers).
Survey answers have been getting better, but this phenomenon has been going on since COVID. They may need to change methodology, or better yet, create a database with compulsory reporting.
It's not so much something wrong with their methodologies as there is something wrong with the economy.
BLS's initial numbers are based on large corporations who publicly report payroll changes. From this, they project similar gains/losses for SMBs. This normally is relatively accurate, although there will always be some level of revision when SMBs report their payroll changes in the following quarter.
But what we're seeing right now is that the economy is still working for large corporations, but it's not working for SMBs. So SMBs are shedding jobs at a higher rate than large corporations, which results in the revisions showing significantly larger losses than initially projected.
I'm not sure investors would go along with your idea to just delay reporting job numbers by a quarter or two.
You don't think it's significant that the last BLS head being fired specifically for saying "bad" numbers is casting doubt on the BLS? What about the fact that recent revisions are way off normal standards. Almost a milliona jobs revised down last year, which was an all time record. This year is on track to beat it. https://www.npr.org/2025/09/09/nx-s1-5527000/bls-us-job-growth-numbers-revised
What do you mean better? If you're asking why job numbers have continued to be bad despite the firing, they do continue to be bad because you cant change what states report eventually. But the BLS has been at the absolute upper limit of believable estimates to try to gloss over what has been years of a bad job situation in the US. Everyone fixates on the reports saying hiring is ok even though the downard revisions keep coming showing it has not been.
If it helps I genuinely believe this and am not proposing some grand conspiracy, just the thing in the article that the president himself said and did. Not going beyond that, just saying the president has meddled in the BLS because he wants jobs to look better.
...or that's just how revisions work, and have worked for decades. It takes time to get survey results in, and bad numbers often take longer to come in for a number of reasons...
The massive downward revisions are far more concerning than the July monthly loss.
When previous months get revised down by over 100,000 jobs, it proves that the labor market was cooling down much faster than the initial headline numbers suggested. This pattern of persistent negative revisions is classic late-cycle economic behavior
Most of us understand the underlying economy is cracking due to policy decisions. The stock market is the only metric holding it up at the moment and if that rolls over…. Yikes 👀
I actually think it’s going to push the highs once more. I don’t know the catalyst. Maybe an Iranian deal or something to that effect. I know I’m positioned to long volatility if we reach the top once more.
That’s my plan. I hate to see it but I’ll take advantage of Trump’s stupidity like I did during Covid. The 2nd highest earning day of my life was 3/20/21.
I agree it will continue to push until it forced not to.
I think the inevitable catalyst will be guidance changes from big companies about the knock on effects of the war and tariffs. That will cause the mass sell off. When that maybe is anyones guess but just don't know how there can't be repercussions to these numerous market shocks. The 30 year yield is casually chilling over 5% like its the new standard. Its crazy but stocks just keep pushing. They really are in their own bubble
It’ll be the inevitable shock from the US government having to drastically cut spending and/or force major changes to the structure of Medicare/Social Security.
There only like 10 bubbles out there so just need one to pop, student debt, credit card debt, medical debt, housing, food, AI, stock market, bond market etc.
"There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy" - Alfred Henry Lewis
I am coming to the understanding that the market won't have a massive correction because it has become increasingly detached from the underlying economy.
Like, it's just a gambling house now. It has basically zero correlation to the real economy.
Consider this: Tesla and Nvidia make.up almost 10% of the SP500. Those companies hardly sell anything real to actual people in the economy. Tesla is a niche car maker with pretty small revenue, Nvidia mostly sells to ai hyper scalers now.
Throw in Microsoft, apple, Google, Meta, and that is 45% of the sp500 and their combined contribution to the economy that actually touches people is tiny, all things considered. Like, it's trivially easy to go thru life and never purchase a product from any of those companies.
And yet, they are damn near half the sp500.
This tells me that the stock market, which has always been only mildly tethered to the real economy, has now become completely divorced from it. So playing that forward, I think the real economy can (and probably has) crashed, and the stock market will just...never feel it.
Nah, oil price is the bigger bomb. Once they realize we are using the oil reserve and we can't do it for ever oil is going to shoot up to $150. Once they figure it we are fucked. I mean it's like that is common knowledge and Trump is manipulating the market
I think they will pour everything into keeping the stock market cooked until some little tiny thing becomes a catacalysmic collapse. Like someone will fail to make a payment on a used 2018 Toyota Camry and it will just collapse the whole global economy and be found that the debts have been floated by nonexistent assets and cooked books the whole time.
The fact that banks no longer have a reserve requirement, plus the fact that banks can hold unlimited nonreportable crypto positions are what keeps my hair standing on end.
How much loss from bitcoin is being hidden by overblown AI bubble and stock gains? And what happens if the market takes a quick shock?
Banks do not have a set ratio reserve requirement, but they certainly do have capital requirements. Here is the first article Google found on it: https://www.sifma.org/news/blog/understanding-the-current-regulatory-capital-requirements-applicable-to-us-banks
Actually you aren’t far off but we are actually past that stage there’s a ton of cars and homes that banks could default on but they legit don’t know what to do with them so a lot of them are being kept form defaulting by a bank cause for now at least the person using it is providing free maintenance.
All of these terrible business and policy choices they’ve been making are destroying the economy. They’re making us less competitive on the global stage. It’s making it more expensive for businesses to operate in the USA because the stuff that they import is too expensive and it’s too volatile in terms of what the price is gonna be from one day to the next. Companies are struggling to plan and be able to accomplish things of significant value because they’re very uncertain about the economy.
The goal seems to be trying to go back to a pre-income tax USA… so 1913. The part they’re neglecting is the type of economy we were then vs now.
We were a net exporter of goods in 1913. Today we’re a net importer. We export services but not enough to offset our import demand.
They’re taking a reasonable economic principle and fucking up the execution cataclysmically. I’m genuinely shocked at the ineptitude. Like it’s offensive how stupid they are.
Exactly they’re completely taking us backwards in terms of what makes an economy grow in today’s world. They are literally destroying the very fabric of that foundation and it’s purposeful too. They know what they’re doing. It’s just really sad because I work in sales in the transportation, industry in trucking and our revenue is down so drastically year over year it’s unbelievable unless you actually see the underbelly of the economy you won’t get how bad it is trending.
The stock market means nothing. It’s just whatever people think companies are worth. They attach a dollar amount to it and people have invested interest in keeping the stock market as long as they possibly can. It’s just a big bubble waiting to burst.
Meanwhile, the inequality wealth gap continues to expand things are becoming more un affordable and we’ve added several trillion dollars to the debt since the new administration took office. They’re doing absolutely everything wrong economically but then they have the guts to tell us that everything’s getting better it’s remarkable
This likely is the real goal, to get rid of income taxes on the wealthy. But tariffs only work well in a young economy that is growing its manufacturing base. It does not work well in a mature economy that has inevitably moved to slow growth in manufacturing output and moved on to a service based economy.
Everything is outlined in plain-text within the "Mandate For Leadership: The Conservative Promise" (aka, "Project 2025)
The goals generally speaking are:
Weaken Blue State national influence by crippling their economic centers
Abolish the income tax and replace it with a sales tax & tariffs
Abolish virtually all regulations - environmental, safety etc
Adopt the "Unitary Executive Model" of Presidential leadership, bolstered by a SCOTUS that's been handpicked by Republicans
In accordance with the above, allow the President to rule exclusively via Executive Order (a bonus here for Republicans is that they don't have to actually sign their name to anything granting them a level of plausible deniability)
A post crossed my Reddit home yesterday or Wednesday saying despite the economy probably growing ~120k jobs things aren’t as rosy as those numbers would suggest.
I was skeptical of it for the reasons you say, but there apparently are people believed the job numbers would be positive.
"Unexpected" when referring to economic data almost always means in comparison to a consensus figure. "Unexpected" CPI number, for example, means that the market (i.e. a consensus of experts) believe the number will be X, and when it is not X, then it is unexpected.
It quite literally states it in the article:
>The Dow Jones consensus forecast had been looking for a gain of 83,000.
That number was not reasonably close to what was reported, hence unexpected.
Because over half the people on this sub are econ tourists who have no actual formal understanding of economics. It just becomes a place for pseudo-intelligent popular upvote takes.
Like I doubt this person knows what term premia is or PMI, PPI, CPI, PCE, etc. or how the yield curve behaves in a hiking cycle or if they've even heard of DSGE.
> And doubting the numbers is quite foolish as there are no reputable economists who doubt the figures.
This is exactly where the problems arise for laypeople. Fwiw, I'm not one of the BLS skeptics.
The premise of this discussion was the 'unexpected' results compared to the estimates by the reputable economists i.e. experts. This calls into question the authority of those experts. To claim that we should trust the official figures because of those same economists is a mental leap for a lot of people. Especially when their anecdotal experiences conflict with the report.
I don't think we can disagree about basic facts, to be honest.
If I am unable to find any economists who outright distrust government data (i.e. BEA / BLS), then either you must have a secret list of economists I've yet to have heard of, or you are not telling the truth.
Every time I have asked people to list experts who distrust the data, I have found people come up short, or simply refuse to - so I naturally conclude that these "experts" who distrust the data do not exist.
You’re welcome to make your investment decisions how you see fit. I know who or what I am interested in listening to.
I will not cling to data published by this administration because I trust nothing that comes from it.
You too, but be warned, not trusting the consensus of experts comes at great risk, and not just financially. Living in a different epistemic reality has its own problems, which is what MAGA is finding out.
Unless the Iran war ends with the straights reopened fully, the market will crash once the reserves get critical. At the rate it is going, that will be in September maybe October.
0% and near-0% rates for a decade were something that most bears could not foresee because it was unprecedented. The final result of such a policy are unknown because it is also yet unprecedented.
There are many well-founded theories and philosophies that describe business and market cycles, contractions included. Did you accidentally end up here instead of wallstreetbets?
I’m not disagreeing at all, but no one can predict when. I know people who have been on the sidelines for years waiting for the crash, and that’s impossible to predict! The market could run up another 20% and then crash 30%… impossible to say.
I work in wealth management and manage a book of business of several hundred million dollars.
Can you explain these policy decisions that are creating underlying cracks in our economy?
I spend about 20-30 hours each week, for the past 13 years, reading economic data & legislation changes across the entire world so I’m really curious how I missed this.
Gross Domestic Product is calculated by adding four core economic components. Consumption, Investment, Government Spending, and Net Exports.
GDP =C+I+G+(X-M)
Consumption - Higher unemployment lowers disposable income as more individuals lose their paychecks, while concurrent high inflation erodes the purchasing power of remaining households. Together, these pressures force consumers to cut back sharply on discretionary items and prioritize essential goods, causing overall economic consumption to contract.
Government Spending - total spending up considerably, spending on people lower. You’re transitioning from spending on people to spending on military. That’s a net neutral, but I’d argue a net negative.
Net exports - deep in the negative despite the tariff foolishness.
So basically every individual component of GDP is negative and we’re really just starting to see the tangible results of those decisions.
May I recommend putting the penis pump away for a bit and head back into your research 😂. Your profile for someone who manages a 100 million dollar book of business is pretty remarkable! Hat tip to you for having the time to have such fun extracurriculars.
Not a single institution has talked about GDP acceleration it just contracted in last month’s report.
I explained it pretty clearly. Higher inflation through tariffs lowers consumer ability to spend.
Higher government spending on military less on social services again hurts the consumer.
Interest rates are higher the investment into Ai and automation are the only drivers here.
Net exports continues to be deep in the red.
GDP drops from 4 late last year to 1.75 Q2 this year. It’s all policy driven what the hell are you talking about? Someone pegged you too hard last night. 3/4 of the components of GDP negatively impacted by Trumps policies.
We expect weaker growth and more labor market slack near term, but the effects of policy shocks subside in 2026. Inflation starts moderating from 2Q26 as the tariff push fades. After peaking in 2Q26, the unemployment rate starts normalizing in 2H26 while GDP growth picks up. We expect 25bp rate cuts in December, January, and April as the Fed takes its policy stance close to neutral.
- Morgan Stanley
Bank of America has raised its global growth forecasts following a fragile Iran peace agreement that has eased energy market concerns, while warning that persistent U.S. inflation is likely to prompt the Federal Reserve to resume interest rate hikes later this year.
The bank now expects global GDP growth of 3.2% in 2026, up from its previous forecast, accelerating to 3.5% in 2027
- Bank of America
Looking solely at Q2’s GDP growth rate, one would think the economy is weakening. Not so, say Ed and Elias. In fact, demand of all types strengthened last quarter, buoyed by brisk consumer spending, thanks to the Baby Boomers, and brisk business investment, thanks to the AI boom. The lower GDP growth rate was a function of surging imports, which aren’t bad news. Imports often rise in response to a strong domestic economy. … Also: As the economic engine heated up last quarter, so did inflation. The same consumer spending and AI capex trends keeping the economy vibrant are also boosting inflation, along with higher energy prices
- Yardeni Research
You’re looking like a FOOL.
Still haven’t mentioned what you do for a living.
Stick to that and stop commenting like you know this shit. You don’t.
I teach economics for a living you dunce. I was also around in 1999 when economic forecasts described mainstream optimism, “the unrepentent bulls” of the .com era.
I get it, you’re a Trump guy as highlighted in your post in your profile…
And I get it you can copy and paste something from analysts whose job it is to get and maintain investor confidence have plenty of sound bites.
Within months that stock market rolled over to a decade of nothingness under Republican leadership. You don’t have any assets under management you are an uneducated troll upset your guy is getting absolutely annihilated.
See economists have attention to detail. All you had to do was click to know what I do for a living. Unfortunately for you nobody with 100’s of millions of dollars in asset management is on Reddit talking about paying 2 Mexican guys $600 to move shit. So please fuck off and go away. Whatever kicks you get from this imposter syndrome is really weird. Your orange Cheeto is fucking the economy blind. Accept it.
Agreed. I can see it in big tech. Lots more applications. Due to fewer openings. Many of the jobs that would have stabilized job growth went to India over the past 12-24 months. Those well paying tech jobs have a trickle down effect to blue color jobs.
Keep an eye on how auto parts stores are doing as I bet we will see more people doing auto maintenance themselves.
I dont know if its possible for the stock market to roll over.
The amount of money we've allowed individuals and corporations to hoard is enough to manipulate the market over and over. For example, look at these AI companies shuffling a trillion fake dollars among themselves over and over.
Then you have the government taking hundreds of billions of dollars of our tax money and giving it to these corporations to subsidize entire industries.
The stock markets only propped up by a few mega-corporations (AI/Tech) exchanging money between themselves. They’ve effectively have so much money they created their own separate economy and country that influences us.
It’s only lasted so long because Trump has ignored any regulatory/trade regulations. Once he’s gone (or if Dems retake Congress) it’ll all collapse.
They’ve already skirted the rules so Elon can have SpaceX in our retirement accounts (our funds are his collateral) and I expect a crackdown from the SEC once power shifts.
Big industrials, space and defense beg to differ. Caterpillar has had a good run, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, etc. Energy to a degree has had a good run. There’s strength there. Just a matter of its resilience.
Trump fired the people reporting accurate numbers last year and this has always been the trend. Economy numbers look not great but still positive and then 2-4 months later they revise the numbers and turns out they were all negative but again, not catastrophically so, like they're slow walking their failure into the past in hopes that the market wont care and can keep pretending things are good enough for stocks to still go up while the stilts the whole economy is built on get skinnier and skinnier.
We've had to contend with a the problem of jobs being destroyed nearly as fast as they have been created the past years. Despite what some on this subreddit seem to think the reports haven't been particularly good, so this isn't as crazy of a result as it may seem.
Sorry this may be a dumb question, but how can the economy lose jobs and unemployment also go down? Is this just people retiring and leaving the labor force?
Yeah labor force shrunk. People may leave the labor force for many reasons including that they've become discouraged after a long time looking but in recent years it's been an upswing in retirements. Aging population and soaring stock market has encouraged people to drop out.
The same way that they determine many of these stats. A massive survey of a rotating sample of households. If you report being out of work, you are asked if you have conducted any of a number of tasks within the past month, from submitting a resume all the way down to asking a friend if they know of any jobs.
If you haven't done any of the tasks even once in the prior four weeks, you are considered to be out of the workforce for the sample period.
It's not part of the BLS survey so we don't have official numbers. It's just well-known that boomers are aging out of the work force so it's assumed but we don't have an exact figure.
A stat that I prefer is Prime-age employment-population ratio. It's the ratio of workers to non-workers aged 25-54 which should exclude the vast majority of retirees and college students. You can see the number has been strong for quite a while though below all-time highs. This report actually caused a significant drop for the first time in a while.
It is a part of the survey. When people respond that they aren't looking for a job, there is an additional question for the reason why. Retired is one of the potential answers.
Just to clarify, the survey is the CPS, conducted by the Census, and they do ask about retirement, but the BLS doesn't put it on the employment report.
And, during an economic recovery, unemployment going up isn’t necessarily bad, as there’s more people actively looking for a job again, so they are counted in the unemployed data
Having the stock market at record highs certainly makes early retirement an attractive proposition, especially with the ACA making it possible to let the government pick up the tab for your health insurance.
Unemployment makes it hell to let people file, people keep looking for a job but eventually give up, then they use those numbers to pad their stats make unemployment not look bad when its way worse they just make people wish they didn't file for it instead
And yet the markets are up today. Truth is the numbers are all shite now. The stock markets which supposedly have underlying value are now being manipulated like cryptocurrency. The job numbers are a catch up to previously manipulated job numbers. Between Lutnik and Bessant it’s liar poker all over again.
Stock market likes the job numbers because all it cares about now is the interest rate and the cost of borrowing for big tech firms. Job losses lowers the chance of a rate hike.
"Hassett on why the economy lost 50,000 government jobs: "It was one of those weird seasonal things. Because there was a lot of snow in the winter, a lot of schools had to stay open longer for the snow days, so the teachers got laid off in July instead of the end of June."
That doesn't really hold water, because seasonally adjusted local education numbers were down last month too, albeit just a small amount. If they were just being held over for a month, you'd expect to have seen a 50,000 jobs added number last month.
I'm sorry, but 'unexpectedly'? All I keep seeing is how companies keep laying thousands of people off, largely driven by AI replacement and then add in the clear slow down in the economy due to tariffs, rising fuel and food prices, and a violent immigration enforcement policy, how can anyone look at this and say it's unexpected? This sounds so out of touch and disconnected from everyday reality.
Meanwhile, here in Canada, we added 75k more jobs in the same month. Keep in mind we're 1/10th the size of the US. Trump can't even run a trade war competently. Our GDP growth is higher, and inflation is lower than the US as well. More trade war please!
Is everybody on wall street stupid? We've been getting these wow jobs numbers are great and then quiet drastic revisions for many months now. Why does anyone act surprised
I want everything to crash and burn at this point. I feel like Americans richest class is addicted to money making at the expense of others so much to the point that it's destroying our country. We need to hit the lowest point before we can wake up and turn the ship around.
That richest class will never pay for their greed—they’ll get a bailout and we’ll get more tent cities.
I want it to burn to the ground, too, but so long as money buys you power in this country and Americans are too chicken shit for a French-style revolution, the rich are going to prop up their money printer that is America forever.
Not as bad as the great depression, but it's bad. Prices keep going up, but we're in a recession and unemployment also go up. It's a nightmare for monetary policy, which is the only real tool we have in the US to plan our economy. (Assuming congress takes little to no significant action)
Edit: to be clear, I'm not here to say we ARE in stagflation, but pointing out that this is what it would start like. Continuing inflation and rising unemployment.
So, if there's some sort of shock to the system, like rising prices on basic manufacturing/agricultural necessities (like.... oil?), this could cause prices to rise. As operating expenses go up, and demand stays stagnate or reduces, companies look for ways to cut costs. In the short term, this is usually laying people off, which results in higher unemployment. Which reduces demand.
In a recession, this pushes prices down. You lower interest rates to make money flow faster, which raises economic activity and restores employment. In stagflation, lowering interest rates just pushes inflation more, and doesn't do much of anything for unemployment. You can try fighting the inflation by raising interest rates, but this slows the economy down, which pushes up unemployment. There's nothing a central bank can really do to solve it. It needs legislative action.
> I am not necessarily describing what is happening now
Here is what you said:
> pointing out that this is what it would start like. Continuing inflation and rising unemployment.
If "this is what it would start like" did not mean "what's happening now is what it would start like", what were you talking about? An imagined future time with rising unemployment?
> make sure you know WHY the unemployment was down. Care to share with the class?
Hard to say specifically why, really. It was down by significantly more than the labor force, so it's certainly really down.
I'm guessing, based on the "make sure you know", that you have an explanation. What is it? I'm hoping that it's not just that you were parroting something you read in an article without looking at the actual numbers.
Oh no... so it was just that you were parroting something you read without actually looking at the numbers. Well that's disappointing. And I notice you didn't answer my first question.
"Fed bank stats"? FRED is a data aggregator, not where the stats come from. As the website you cited clearly states: "Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics" It comes from the same job report we're all talking about here. I genuinely mean no offense, but you need to tone down the smugness about fifteen notches - you're way out of your depth.
I am citing exactly the stats you are pointing at. I said that unemployment was down 180,000, and you asked why. As I said in my reply, unemployment was down quite a bit more than the labor force was down, so just waving your hands at the labor participation rate doesn't have anything to do with this month. That would only have relevance if unemployment dropped by 60% of what the labor force dropped by. That's exactly what I was referring to when I said you were parroting something you read rather than looking at the actual numbers. On the longer term, both the unemployment level and the unemployment rate are down over the last six months. We are not seeing "rising unemployment" by any stretch of the imagination, and just trying to band-aid that by saying the LPR declining for the last twenty-five years somehow magically makes it the complete opposite doesn't make any sense.
And I again notice you didn't answer my first question.
edit LOL... makes a snarky response about "leading by example" and then blocks me, when he was the one who started with "Care to share with the class?". Classic. Better luck next time, bud.
I only really see employment going up temporarily probably in October-November for all the temp hires in retail for holiday purposes, outside of that, I'm not sure what Q1 of next year will look like, doesn't seem good to be honest.
So many revisions, really is a shame how inaccurate the BLS has became since covid. Probably doesn’t help that there is potential political influence as well.
>With these revisions, employment in May and June combined is 103,000 lower than previously reported.
Exactly. The numbers are consistently cooked bc if the orange fuhrer in chief doesn't like the numbers people lose their jobs and have targets on their backs.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the employment report is measuring
It DOES NOT measure jobs created/lost
It measures total number of jobs - currently there are over 160 million jobs in the US and the revision of 103,000 jobs means that the BLS was off by 0.06% or so
This is literally not even a rounding error. This is extreme accuracy.
When people apply the margin of sampling error in the survey it should be applied to the number of total employment, because that is what the survey is attempting to capture. In that frame, being off by less than a tenth of a percent is still fairly accurate.
But people want to use the percent change between the two as a measure of error. Saying the BLS was off by 50%. This fundamental misunderstands what the survey is capturing and how it works.
> they can't help that the cadence of business means that companies report later or not at all.
What do you mean by 'cadence'? Employees are typically one of the larger discretionary budget items and are closely tracked. Why would that change over the last 6 years?
Perhaps they need to revisit the mechanics of how they are requesting and collecting the data?
A small portion of my job entails compiling bls survey response data (jolts, general oews). It's not that complicated at the orgs i've worked for.
As of right now, a lot of non-traditional businesses are starting, hiring and firing staff and not reporting on time. It's hard to estimate the affects they have on other businesses, so with decreasing reporting rates you have to make do with the data that you have. This unfortunately means that you get revisions, but even then the revisions aren't that extreme in the grand scheme of the workforce.
Thanks for the link, I wasn't sure of the precise terminology for that adjustment. I'll have to spend some time to think about how post covid changes may be impacting their modeling.
For anybody interested, the birth-death adjustments for this year and last can be found here: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbd.htm
And a more technical model definition can be found here: https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/ces/calculation.htm#business-births-and-deaths
This issue is really that there's political pressure to release this data early before it's ready. It's abundantly clear that there's a selection bias where
the early responders aren't representative of the entire sample.
The stock market would eventually get over it if they published a month or two later. And I think that the benefit of the improved headline unemployment number outweighs this current mess of buried revisions that we now have.
This data is released on the third Friday after the survey, which takes place on the week including the 12th of the month, is complete, just as has been done lo these many years. It has nothing to do with political pressure.
Whats the point of releasing this at this frequency at all if the numbers are pointless and just get revised downwards later? Actual policy decisions are made in real time based off of this report but it’s completely inaccurate until several months after the fact
Yes, since Trump has taken office from his first term, fewer and fewer companies are filling out the employment surveys so the prospective data is less accurate and the government has to wait longer for the true data to come in which of course makes it more difficult for the fed to make their decisions. They (the fed) have other data sets they can use in the interim but just not as strong as a robust government jobs report.
There always has been revisions but they have seem to gotten larger since covid. They can’t help if businesses stop responding to them as seen with the response rate going down
I just know that I know a lot of people who are 'employed' who have gone from getting 30-80 hours per week to getting 0 to 10 hours per week. So, you know, "employed" with no hours worked or paid. That's kinda it in a nutshell.
Working reduced not full time hours would also generally qualify someone for unemployment benefits , I don't know if that shows up in the jobs survey but it would show up in the UE claims.
Look at the BLS July jobs report. The number of workers working part time involuntarily, went up by 180k. So it is not true at all that nobody lost hours.
It is not unexpected if they are cooking the books. We had gangbuster "job" reports, which all got revised down, when Trump wanted higher job numbers as evidence for his amazing job with the economy. But now that he caused an inflation crisis, he needs the job report to be bad so that they don't raise intrest rates. Wouldn't be surprised if this latest job report is revised up in the next report
Because an average person isn't looking at the revisions. It is why Trump can scream SoH is open and everyone believes him. Because the avg. person isn't tracking shipping data.
No, I mean why do it at all? Like you guys are trying to tell me that they’re fabricating the data but simultaneously feel the need to release correct data?
Because it's much easier to get away with a lie for a month and then release the truth once everyone is focused on newer months than it is to get away with an extended coverup.
For the first, you just have to tweak the somewhat subjective methods for estimation. For the second, you have to prevent anyone from leaking the more detailed data after it has been collected.
Dude, acknowledging the lie and releasing the evidence routinely doesn’t make it easier to get away with. You want this to be true badly enough that you’re not thinking.
I feel like you've been answered multiple times, but maybe don't like those answers? No one knows for sure, but given his history, and the way he flat out lies about things, I absolutely believe he'd release doctored numbers knowing full well they'll get revised, but also knowing his base won't pay attention to that or the average American aren't going to see the revised numbers.
It's essentially a bet IMO, that the initial report will gain more eyes and influence more people that things are better, and only a select few will notice the revisions.
It’s not a matter of me disliking the answer. No one before you actually answered the question. They just told me that by the time the revisions are out people care less—that’s not a reason why the revisions come out in the first place.
They lie about the initial numbers to pump the stock market. Then they revise later down when nobody cares about the previous months. What do you not understand here? Is it hard to comprehend?
Yes, to repeat your extremely tired insult, it’s “hard to comprehend” why they would decide to fake the numbers and then later reveal the evidence of their fakery.
It’s further “hard to comprehend” why revisions like this have been going on for literal decades, and, if they’re evidence of book cooking, why they’re about as often positive as they are negative. It’s hard to comprehend why you think investors wouldn’t notice or care about the pattern that’s so obvious to you. It’s hard to comprehend why the official data hasn’t veered off course from other independent data sources if it’s fake. Lastly, it’s hard to comprehend how fakery on this scale would ever work without being uncovered.
The idea that they’re cooking the books just does not stand up to scrutiny.
While you're thinking about my other question, here's something else to chew over: if they're fabricating the numbers, why would they fabricate a report that shows job losses?
because it would be worse if they didn't release anything at all... this way the economy looks fine, and inly the people looking at revisions would see the real stuff
most people dont care about revisions.. as long as the initial reports that grabs the headlines are good, everybody moves on. It's not completely "fake", it's embellished to look "good". They know they will revise it down later.
It still better than not releasing the numbers at all, because people will be asking questions: what are you hiding? why nothing is being released?
Because, like the Chinese government finds out with population numbers- eventually you have to reconcile the numbers. The more you lie about the numbers, the further you depart from the factual numbers and people will be able to point out the discrepancy and the lie.
Every month I have to come in here and explain just how impossible it is to fudge these numbers
The only way they can try to “cook the numbers” is to stop funding BLS .. which is what they’ve been doing for years now.
However, fewer funds for survey results only adds variance and they can’t choose if the numbers are over or under reported.
These reports are produced by hundreds of workers from the point of collection to the actual statistical modeling and writing of the report.
The commissioner of the BLS doesn’t even see the report until ~24 hours before it’s published. In fact, the report is already loaded into the system for publication before the commissioner ever sees it.
There are hundreds of thousands (if not over a million) worksites that voluntarily send their employment data
So this conspiracy to cook the books is some agreement between hundreds to thousands of people to falsify millions of data points?
The entity which collects, tabulates, and reports the data controls the entire pipeline. You would have a point if they released the entire raw survey data, but they do not.
Not a single business would submit its data if the data were published for the world to see
State level employees, who are not BLS employees or even federal employees, have access to the employment data for their state and can participate in producing the report.
The BLS doesn’t have a Trump stooge installed.
Literally nothing you say has any basis in reality.
Lol, you clearly do not secure systems against bad actors if you believe that a centralized entity cannot be corrupted.
Simplifying things down, if the entity that controls the data pipeline received a single survey response, what would stop them from just adding 5 jobs to that response and reporting accordingly?
But please go give your 2 brain cells a workout since you think that thousands of career feds are all in on this conspiracy to make Trumps job report look … so bad??
The raw survey data goes into a singular entity responsible for controlling it where the only oversight that exists is part of that same entity.
The only way to independently verify the accuracy of the entire pipeline would be if the raw data was released alongside. It could be anonymized fairly easily, so the idea that response rate would go down is silly.
EVERY SINGLE STATE HAS NON BLS NON FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WHO VIEW INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT REPORTS AND BLS ESTIMATION RESULTS BEFORE THE REPORT IS WRITTEN OR FINALIZED
THEY SEND COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS
The conspiracy crowd always has a justification. If it was a good jobs report, it's because elections are coming up soon. Bad, it's because of interest rates.
Agreed. What is also worth thinking about is that current capital spending in AI build out is temporary, but the jobs being displaced by AI is not. So keeping rates where they are or even cutting rates will likely destroy jobs in the medium term, the converse of what has historically happened.
US Nonfarm Payrolls: Initial vs Revised, 2024–2026
Numbers in thousands of jobs. Source: BLS via St. Louis Fed (ALFRED vintages for initial, FRED for current).
Since January 2024, before this report, the revisions are listed above. The largest revisions include May 2024, and January 2025 with over 190k revisions.
Just looking at the jobs since January 2025, it's 1784k jobs added initially, and 668k jobs verified, revising down 1116k jobs. Over the scope, verified jobs were down half from initial reports, and under this Administration, verified jobs were down 1/3 of what was initially reported, meaning job creation is slowing.
And now, for June 2026, they are reporting adding 20,000 jobs, which was revised from higher. And for July, they're reporting a loss of 23,000 jobs, which may be revised further lower. February 2026 saw -92,000 jobs initially, with -156k jobs lost being the revision after the fact.
>The unemployment rate edged lower to 4.1%, but was due largely to a further decline in those holding jobs or looking for work.
A decline in "those holding jobs" (laid off) and a decline in those "looking for work".
>Worker pay was nearly flat in the month as well, with the 12-month increase in average hourly earnings slipping to 3.2%, the lowest since May 2021.
Fewer jobs than reported, and no wage growth at a time when we're seeing unprecedented inflation.
So are we ready to discuss how the US economy is propped up by data center spending, and we're dangerously far out "over our skis" right now with the lack of economy by the largest segment of the population?
Even before Friday's report, Americans were saying they were unsettled about the labor market. Subdued hiring and layoffs have left many feeling stuck.
In recent months, more than a quarter of the unemployed have been looking to work for more than six months. That number declined in July, which can sometimes mean that people stuck in long, frustrating job searches have given up altogether.
In a July consumer survey from the Conference Board, a research group, 24.6% said jobs seem plentiful, while 21.5% said they are hard to get-the least favorable split since 2021.
I really think a large part of this may be due to so many people “working under the table” now. I know so many people who now work as movers, nannys, landscapers, handymen, etc., who do it all without being on the radar of the federal government/IRS. To the government, it looks like those people lost their jobs or left the labor market.
I’m one of them. I saw a post on Reddit about some guy growing sunflowers and making nearly 100k a year with little effort. So last year I turned a half acre into a sunflower patch and sell sunflowers along with photography slots, and I’m making about $50k a year off the table in mostly cash. Like everybody else I’m turning to the “side gig” economy to make ends meet.
Eh, not everyone owns the land to do something like that and normal people lack the creativity and hard work to be a substantial gig worker. I’d like to see some data that proves this before I believe it.
Fired Erika for constant less than appealing job numbers and countless amount of backdated revisions. You love to see. Can't put lipstick on a pig as they say
I know how hard people say it would be to falsify the data, but firing her couldn't be for nothing. I can't see him firing her and then just letting the numbers be released accurately.
Knowing Trump,
what you've seen with Iran, and the way the BLS works and why it hasn't been working as well lately (read, for close to 6 years), it actually isn't as hard as you think to come to the conclusion that it was for nothing.
The firing was because he didn't like Erika and wanted "his" guy. Nothing more, nothing less.
In the meantime, he still hasn't gotten "his" guy, there hasn't been an exodus from BLS that would suggest something suspicious is going on, and they continue to struggle with response rates not being fast enough as they have since 2020.
Unexpectedly??? Look at the last 5 months job growth numbers… in the chart CNN has on their page under this headline. They’re in a perfectly straight line exactly toward this loss!!!
So, I’m assuming the actual number is much lower. It must be really bad if the best number they can give Trump is a negative number. I’m sure he’ll blame Biden or Obama, never his fault. What happened to the golden age of jobs?????
Trump wants a lower number, he needs the fed to not increase rates and a poor jobs number helps that narrative. Frankly they could have pressed for a lower number
Interesting tid bit is that the official unemployment rate actually fell in this despite the job loss.
If immigration keeps tightening, and as the population ages, it'll become more common than not to see the jobs number go down while the unemployment rate is stable or dropping.
We have a position open in my university department and I’m on the hiring committee. Normally we’d have about 12 applicants to review. This time around we have 50.
Lucky your university is hiring. Mine is on a hiring freeze and they recently laid off 30 staff members. More layoffs expected in September after Census confirms lower enrollments.
Over 2 trillion in market cap has been lost. I'm pretty sure job losses were expected. Why is traditional media so soft? Who are they coddling with that headline?
We are headed toward a new 1970s style stagflation event. Just like then they had an oil crisis coupled with unemployment that kept increasing while nominal gdp only marginally rose so too will the same metrics behave today
You mean real GDP. Nominal GDP rose massively during the 1970s due to enormous inflation. Of the ten years with over 10% nominal growth since World War 2, five occurred during the 1970s.
Is July is usually the worst month for the US economy . Literally, every month is usually average but July is always the worst or signals a recession is imminent.
When this last occured in 2024, we then split jobs into more units of wages, increasing the total supply of labor units.
Labor units have been Decreasing, this would mean either.... A large influx of jobs are going to be created from the recent/future cuts which is now, again, experience diluting wage inertia +they are about to dramatically increase the monetary base that workers will be paid in... A double dilution... And this doesnt just make utility positive bc of the math rule anout negatives, other thinge will drastically change....
If we avoid a recession itll be because they have just what they need to keep us held where were at, and if not, its bc someone inevitable "fked up"
The S&P 500 and the Nasdaq opened higher on Friday after data showed the U.S. economy unexpectedly shed jobs last month, raising doubts about a September interest-rate hike by the Federal Reserve.
anyone else find it suspicious that we seem to have alternating unexpectedly good and bad jobs reports? it’s almost like someone is manipulating the data ( but not outright fabricating) to give a good jobs report every other month at the expense of the intervening month. Am I crazy?
Unexpectedly? Interesting headline. I truly thought the numbers would have been much higher. I guess we'll know more when they revise and publish the updated numbers.
It will only continue as more companies adapt to AI. Even something as simple as a Copilot premium subscription is enough to make employees insanely more productive and reduce headcount.
When they release good numbers "They cook the numbers there's no way". When they release bad numbers "See I told you economy is bad". Everything that supports doomerism I guess.
The silver lining to the cloud is that the Fed will remain on hold at least for the remainder of 2026.
Both goods and services inflation are likely to slowly decline as businesses keep the lid on prices to maintain market share in a weaker demand environment and the labor slack keeps wages in check.
We should see 10 year yield slowly decline towards the 4% level which would mean lower mortgage rates.
Trump wants a bad jobs report. I would not be shocked if the jobs report was doctored to get a lower number. It’s all about keeping the equities markets humming
Everything about the numbers being published is BS. The admin is pushing out numbers that are “nice” to look at. But shit is getting so bad that they can’t even outright lie about it.
This is really bad huh? I’m a dummy when it comes to economics like this, and in my own isolated bubble I thought things weren’t that bad. But then they kept delayed reports. I only paid attention to my 401k to be honest
What are you referring to here? There was a single delayed economic report due to the government shutdown, but it hasn't been a continuous thing at all.
Dublers | 16 hours ago
>The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for May was revised down by 66,000, from +129,000 to +63,000, and the change for June was revised down by 37,000, from +57,000 to +20,000. With these revisions, employment in May and June combined is 103,000 lower than previously reported. (Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.)
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
United-Dot-2814 | 16 hours ago
Either the job market was worse then we thought, or someone really want a rate cut.
Muroid | 16 hours ago
¿Por qué no los dos?
MrFreaky_Naughty | 16 hours ago
Sadly it is both..
Maximum2945 | 16 hours ago
but inflation is too high for a rate cut lol
Yeetball86 | 15 hours ago
You’re giving him too much credit
Prescientpedestrian | 15 hours ago
Keep an eye on the 10 year bond rate. They’ll cut no matter what if it passes 5%. We’re talking trillions of extra interest payments for every 1% rate change, and there’s a fear of runaway rate growth if we pass 5% and people start to fear US insolvency.
ralkyr | 15 hours ago
If the Fed cuts the overnight rate when they should raise it (due to inflation), it'll increase the 10 year bond rate, not decrease it. Markets know that an artificially low short term rate will drive inflation higher and induce more rate hikes in the future. It's why we saw higher bond rates when the Fed held rather than increase as they were expected to do.
iamCosmoKramerAMA | 14 hours ago
You’re acting like these fundamentals matter anymore.
10yr will go above 5, Fed will cut rates, 10yr will go above 5.5, Trump will blame rising mortgage rates on democrats because his people cut rates, what more can you do, and his base will believe it. Damage will continue to be done until voters fix it in 2028, which might not actually happen.
jschutz93 | 14 hours ago
And then the voters will blow it back up in 2030 or 2032, and on the cycle goes as the empire dies.
MisinformedGenius | 12 hours ago
In the absence of any evidence of politically-driven decisions at the Fed, they deserve the benefit of the doubt. They have taken extremely politically unpopular decisions many times in the past, and they're also perfectly aware that letting inflation get out of control will drive Treasury rates far higher.
content_enjoy3r | 12 hours ago
> they deserve the benefit of the doubt.
No, they absolutely do not, especially with Warsh in charge.
MisinformedGenius | 11 hours ago
People said exactly the same thing about Jerome Powell.
kingshekelz | 7 hours ago
Bond market does the work even if the fed wont..
Prescientpedestrian | 15 hours ago
The lowest rates over the last several decades have been when the overnight rate was at or near zero. If trump ends the Iran war, inflation will drop but the government is going to become insolvent very quickly if rates go much higher.
ralkyr | 15 hours ago
The context is key. Rates were low before because inflation expectations pre-COVID were very low, so long term rates were low too. Stopping the war with Iran takes some inflationary pressure off, but it was still higher than ideal before the war and the inflationary pressure from the war doesn't disappear overnight, even if it stopped today.
Prescientpedestrian | 14 hours ago
Inflation was in the mid 2s before the war with all signs pointing to further decline. The bond rate remained elevated regardless as the Fed rate remained elevated.
HumorAccomplished611 | 14 hours ago
10 yr Think it reached below 4 before the iran war. They were expecting it to go to 3.5 before the war and maybe 3 long term.
Prescientpedestrian | 14 hours ago
It hasn’t dipped below 4% in any appreciable way since 2024. Expectations at the end of 2025 and early 2026 were rate cuts thus the expectations of bond rate decline.
BathroomMaximum1721 | 13 hours ago
The so-called trimmed mean indicators for infation have hit their lowest levels since the early part of the decade.
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/31/these-fed-alternative-indicators-show-inflation-is-at-lowest-in-years.html
railbeast | 14 hours ago
> If trump ends the Iran war
no longer in our control
Prescientpedestrian | 14 hours ago
For sure is he just has to take a big L and concede a ton of ground and put Iran in a better position than it ever was going to be pre war.
BathroomMaximum1721 | 13 hours ago
The best approach is for the Fed to stand pat and let the mildly restrictive policy continue to drive inflation lower. Labor market is showing weakness but is not falling off the cliff.
lolexecs | 14 hours ago
Yep. what you describe is akin to what Burns did in the Nixon admin.
Of course, Burns only managed to entrench inflation and mighty-morph it into stagflation because, at the time, inflation was being driven by an energy shock from the middle east.
It's not like we have the same ... wait a minute!
Maximum2945 | 15 hours ago
if people lose faith in the fed then bond rates will skyrocket no matter what the short term rate is
Prescientpedestrian | 15 hours ago
Since inflation is being propped up by a war, there isn’t really a good choice for the Fed. Raise rates into a softening labor market with war related inflation and increasing bond rates? A very bad choice that will end horribly. Lowering rates to strengthen the labor market and crossing fingers that the war is going to end soon and inflation will drop is more likely imo. Rates will be held steady until one side of the equation starts to accelerate significantly I think.
Sryzon | 14 hours ago
Inflation at its core is a demographics issue, not a war issue. The neutral rate has been rising since 2019 irrespective of whatever economic calamity might be happening at the time. Demographics is what drives trends in rates over the long term (decades). Retirements outpacing job creation is inflationary.
flyinhighaskmeY | 14 hours ago
>Retirements outpacing job creation is inflationary.
lol..So is bailing out failed business owners with stimulus to "save the jobs". Which is the real cause of this issue. The gov is already insolvent. That's why we're trapped with huge annual deficits.
edit: US economists are so stupid, they supported the governement bailing out the worst business owners on the planet. Business owners so stupid, lazy, and incompetent they couldn't be bothered to know what businesses they own. I'm talking of course, about index fund holders.
Prescientpedestrian | 14 hours ago
So you’re saying that the current rise in inflation isn’t war related?
Sryzon | 13 hours ago
There is certainly some inflation caused by the war, but people have been using excuses to call inflation transitory for almost 7 years now. The 2010s bond bull market is over. War or not, 5%+ rates are here to stay. Cutting rates because we reached a peace deal would be an awful mistake.
kirime | 13 hours ago
Is that Erdogan's reddit account?
The traditional understanding is exactly the opposite, higher inflation causes higher bond yield, so the government needs to increase key rate to suppress inflation expectations, which will in time lead to lower interest rates on bonds. This is exactly how inflation was brought under control many times in the past.
Erdogan argued for the opposite direction of cause and effect, he said that high key rate directly leads to higher inflation and higher bond yields. We thank him for conducting that experiment on his country.
You can check how that went, and how inflation started to go down only after Turkey went back to traditional methods and raised the key rate.
Prescientpedestrian | 13 hours ago
It’s all about confidence of the future of a country issuing the bonds. We’ve seen bond yields and inflation decouple, like in 2011-12, as the Fed rate was effectively held at zero, bond rates dropped nearly inverse of inflation for a few years. There isn’t a lot of head room for bond rates to rise now that gov debt is outpacing the total gdp. We are in uncharted territory but there really isn’t much higher bond rates the US can handle, thus the yen intervention recently. And as we saw through the ‘10s, low fed rate doesn’t guarantee high inflation. Really, the Iran war was perfectly timed to ensure no right answers for the Fed. It’s just a recipe for stagflation at a time where bond markets are on the brink, and debt continues to soar but the fact remains, at these debt levels, the US can’t service the debt for much longer if bond rates continue to rise.
TenderfootGungi | 15 hours ago
You have this backwards.
Prescientpedestrian | 15 hours ago
You think they’ll raise rates, causing bond rates to increase, and risk insolvency of the US?
Soggy_Bid_3634 | 15 hours ago
The US is already insolvent. It’s just being masked by bad-faith actors.
HumorAccomplished611 | 14 hours ago
def not. It can easily print money or raise taxes or cut benefits. Debt spending is 1.x trillion while regular spending is like 7 trillion. Just stopping social security cpi adjustments would basically get the debt to neutral.
GDP is like 25 trillion per year.
23rdCenturySouth | 12 hours ago
> Just stopping social security cpi adjustments would basically get the debt to neutral
This is partially defaulting, just on the debt owed to working Americans.
HumorAccomplished611 | 11 hours ago
Its a social safety net, not a debt. But I personally believe boomers voted for the people that have allowed the debt to ballon like this and they should feel part of the pain not just tax the next generation to do boomer luxury communism.
Soggy_Bid_3634 | 12 hours ago
Stop social security?
Just stop payments to Israel. That alone solves 99% of the problems in the USA.
HumorAccomplished611 | 11 hours ago
lmao. israel gets 2 billion dollars a year. Social security is 1.42 TRILLION dollars a year. See that 2 at the end. That 10x the amount israel gets per year
Soggy_Bid_3634 | 9 hours ago
Ok.
HumorAccomplished611 | 7 hours ago
Just basic math. Its an economics subreddit after all
HulksInvinciblePants | 15 hours ago
Expectation changes don’t only impact the near term outlook. The chance of two rate increases just dropped.
erstwhile_estado | 12 hours ago
Haven't they only cut rates since the 10y started going up? A rate cut probably won't bring it down.
ZepperMen | 10 hours ago
Tell that to the Trumpster
gmb92 | 15 hours ago
Most monthly jobs reports have overestimated job growth and at a higher rate than is typical going back to 2025. For 2025, mean 1st to 3rd revision was -58,000, unusually high. The only years that had higher mean revisions dating back to 1979 were 2008, 2020, 2021 (the latter being very high positive revisions), all very volatile economic years due to the great recession and covid. This year looked like it might moderate until this report, but we'll need more data on that. Not entirely sure why this trend has occurred. Might be because companies that are laying off tend to return surveys later and with the very weak jobs situation, that's been happening more.
https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm
DoughnutImportant875 | 11 hours ago
Never expect anything to be reported honestly from this WH. It works to their advantage.
HulksInvinciblePants | 15 hours ago
Why does this sub insist on counterbalancing robust data vs an illogical conspiracy?
United-Dot-2814 | 15 hours ago
That happens when the current administration doesn't inspire trust in government agencies.
HulksInvinciblePants | 15 hours ago
Okay, then look to trust worthy people. It can be this convenient catch-all where good numbers are fake and bad numbers are fake too.
There’s no shortage of people, including career employees behind this report, that would instantly jump at the chance to cry foul.
gmb92 | 12 hours ago
Well there's a greater shortage of those people now than before. Labor department employees now face crininal prosecution if they speak publicly about agency business (in addition to being fired), firing of the Labor head, and Project 2025's goals of creating agencies that are full of loyalists top-down creates perverse incentives.
https://www.propublica.org/article/us-department-labor-leak-criminal-charges-threat
This doesn't mean it's certain or necessarily likely the numbers are being cooked but it's not the same environment as before.
findingmike | 12 hours ago
"Illogical conspiracy" is a poor term when there is plenty of evidence of one. This data may not point to a conspiracy, but you're ignoring a lot of context.
deepasleep | 14 hours ago
That’s a subtle point. Team MAGA may be pressuring the people they haven’t yet fired across various agencies to lower the outlook so the Fed will issue a rate cut in September and the good folks at Fair and Balanced will jabber about how the economy is roaring back.
Inflation is still probably too high to issue a rate cut without causing even more problems, and even if the Fed did issue a cut, the change wouldn’t produce tangible numbers in time for November…But that’s the kind of hairbrained nonsense that seems to be common from “The Best People” in the current administration.
Hot_Individual5081 | 14 hours ago
rate cut in this pro inflationary environment ?? hmm this will require quick solution in iran
InfiniteBlink | 9 hours ago
I dunno if it's my industry (tech) but it's been getting smoked the last two years. Wonder what industries are hiring
Barnyard_Rich | 15 hours ago
Rob Copeland had an interesting note:
>For finance reporters like me, there’s usually not much in these reports. But I’m struck today by the drop in employment in “financial activities” — down 14,000 in July and 121,000 since last May.
>We should be around peak numbers there, as banks and other asset managers ramp up hiring in the spring following bonus season departures. As we have reported, there’s widespread reluctance on Wall Street to add too many new bodies in seats in an era of A.I. costs and changes.
A key booming sector net cutting jobs by over 100,000 over a year is just another example of the disconnect between executives/owners and employees on the state of he economy.
MisinformedGenius | 12 hours ago
The comments about "peak numbers" are silly - the job report is seasonally adjusted to remove seasonal signals. Financial activity employment is in fact at its peak for the year. Losses over the year are fair enough, but the sector's been flat for three years.
gmb92 | 14 hours ago
Note how different the narrative was when the initial report for May was 172,000 rather than 63,000.
Headlines posted on reddit:
"The U.S. added 172,000 jobs in May and the unemployment rate stayed at 4.3%, a strong showing for the labor market."
"US posts another month of strong job gains in May; unemployment rate steady at 4.3%"
"U.S. employers added 172,000 jobs in May, an unexpectedly strong showing"
Media bears a lot of responsibility in putting too much faith in the initial estimates, particularly when were are just coming off of a year that had a mean revision to initial estimates of -58,000. Rarely is that caveat mentioned.
AShavedApe | 13 hours ago
The media malpractice happening is disgusting. They continue to report as if Mitch McConnell himself says things and is alive despite zero evidence. They report stuff as fact all the time and sanewash everything happening. Nobody should ever believe these job numbers and they’ve all been revised down like 80% but that won’t stop them from addressing that or the fact that every Iran peace talk is completely made up for market manipulation reasons. It’s insane.
061826heart | 16 hours ago
The revisions. Barely noticed, but uncover how inaccurate, or contrived, the jobs report numbers really are.
Fed doesn’t have a hard decision to make, contrary to what the message may be. Hiking rates at this time is not a good idea based on hiring data that is bleak, and it’s a years-long story now. On the other hand, we have hit new all time highs in stock markets repeatedly during 2026, sprinkled in with the not-so-rare drop in stocks, usually because a moron with a smartphone decided to tweet something while sitting on the commode.
anti-torque | 16 hours ago
The revisions, which are the first comment on this post and noticed by anyone who has been reading these reports for more than a couple months, are indicative of the process of surveying the initial numbers. If you know how that survey works, you easily understand that the inaccuracies of the initial numbers are simply a given.
It's a matter of the survey period not aligning with the calendar month reported, plus some lag in responses. That's all. It's not at all contrived, and once they're revised, they are accurate.
Spez_is-a-nazi | 15 hours ago
It’s also a function of changing employment norms. If everyone worked a normal w-2 job it’d be easy to check, just run a database query. But that’s not the case anymore and the rate of change is only increasing.
findingmike | 12 hours ago
Good point. Is there data pointing to how much the workforce has changed to non-W-2?
nate_garro_chi | 13 hours ago
The revisions have been unusually large in recent years. Couple that with the rampant dishonesty and fixation on appearance over truth by this administration and suspicion is a natural, and logical, response
TheCoelacanth | 13 hours ago
In normal times, revisions were valid.
In this government filled with pathological liars, revisions are a way to hide the real numbers by sneaking them out as revisions that will get far less headlines than the initial numbers.
061826heart | 15 hours ago
But those initial numbers are the ones most noticed, most published, and people in influential positions use them in their messaging.
I’m fully “read-in” on the science/math behind how the numbers are initially delivered, and how they are revised. But I’m not blind to the fact that headlines are weaponized.
1003mistakes | 14 hours ago
I don’t believe they are weaponized I believe they are lagging. When there are periods of growth you see upward revisions and when you have periods of contraction there are downward ones. It’s just how the methodology is since it relies on prior period velocities.
fx2600 | 16 hours ago
If the job reports were contrived why have a revision process? Having a revision process is good as some information lags.
Yeetball86 | 15 hours ago
Initial reports are essentially estimates to give a rough view of the economy. Later revisions are actual numbers.
guesswho135 | 15 hours ago
Which is why it's funny to revisit these threads months later when everyone who said how "obvious" a result was, was in fact wrong.
1900grs | 10 hours ago
If you go back in those threads, there's plenty of people crowing about how great the economy is and how great the jobs numbers are because they can't be cooked and how naysayers don't understand the economy. Guess what? Real people who are applying for jobs know the jobs market much better than people.
It's grim and it's not because if Ai replacements since Ai isn't there yet. Companies are downsizing based on inflationary costs and making existing employees shoulder a heavier workload. The enshitificication is not sustainable. I don't know what the answer is, but companies need to get back to hiring and paying for expertise with balanced workloads rather than any warm body can do the work of 3 people.
SissyCouture | 15 hours ago
We’re in full monarchy mode where the mad emperor needs positive talking points, and the lagged revisions don’t register with the public
fx2600 | 15 hours ago
Downward revisions were happening before Trump and regardless, if we were in monarchy mode why bother with revisions.
TMN8R | 14 hours ago
Because the market bots react to headlines. Initial reporting being better further lines the pockets of the people fleecing the working class.
fx2600 | 14 hours ago
The stock market obviously cares about revisions and, regardless, if the government were putting out misinformation to boost the stock market wouldn't that hurt rich people that are most exposed to the stock market who are buying an asset that's value is being inflated by misinformation and will be due for a correction?
TMN8R | 14 hours ago
Unless you cash out and short in between the original reporting and the revision. This administration is rife with insider trading. Access to insider information is being sold publicly, even more blatantly now with a higher/faster tier of access on truth social.
SissyCouture | 13 hours ago
Louder for the people in the back. And this is not an administration for all rich people—just the ones who kiss the ring
SissyCouture | 14 hours ago
Because god cons launder lies with truth
Affectionate-Panic-1 | 15 hours ago
BLS has been doing large downward revisions almost every report for a couple of years now. There's something wrong with their methodologies (or they just need to stop reporting initial unemployment numbers).
Alan_Turings_Apple | 15 hours ago
Survey answers have been getting better, but this phenomenon has been going on since COVID. They may need to change methodology, or better yet, create a database with compulsory reporting.
red286 | 10 hours ago
It's not so much something wrong with their methodologies as there is something wrong with the economy.
BLS's initial numbers are based on large corporations who publicly report payroll changes. From this, they project similar gains/losses for SMBs. This normally is relatively accurate, although there will always be some level of revision when SMBs report their payroll changes in the following quarter.
But what we're seeing right now is that the economy is still working for large corporations, but it's not working for SMBs. So SMBs are shedding jobs at a higher rate than large corporations, which results in the revisions showing significantly larger losses than initially projected.
I'm not sure investors would go along with your idea to just delay reporting job numbers by a quarter or two.
Mr_Soul_Crusher | 16 hours ago
If you think BLS employment reports are inaccurate then you are incredibly ignorant or just want to spread a false narrative
gello10 | 15 hours ago
You don't think it's significant that the last BLS head being fired specifically for saying "bad" numbers is casting doubt on the BLS? What about the fact that recent revisions are way off normal standards. Almost a milliona jobs revised down last year, which was an all time record. This year is on track to beat it. https://www.npr.org/2025/09/09/nx-s1-5527000/bls-us-job-growth-numbers-revised
Mr_Soul_Crusher | 15 hours ago
That’s why the numbers have been so much better since?
The mods need to start banning these disingenuous conspiracy theorists
gello10 | 15 hours ago
What do you mean better? If you're asking why job numbers have continued to be bad despite the firing, they do continue to be bad because you cant change what states report eventually. But the BLS has been at the absolute upper limit of believable estimates to try to gloss over what has been years of a bad job situation in the US. Everyone fixates on the reports saying hiring is ok even though the downard revisions keep coming showing it has not been.
If it helps I genuinely believe this and am not proposing some grand conspiracy, just the thing in the article that the president himself said and did. Not going beyond that, just saying the president has meddled in the BLS because he wants jobs to look better.
Mr_Soul_Crusher | 15 hours ago
Trump is meddling with BLS data apparently
And yet every month is a terrible report
Sure thing, pal.
What was your conspiracy when there were years of upwards revisions? Was that Biden cooking the books? Lmao
_aliased | 15 hours ago
people keep forgetting the BLS head was fired. its only year 2 of 4
defaultedebt | 15 hours ago
(and remains headed by an Obama-era appointee)
_aliased | 14 hours ago
fired and replaced under trump is not an obama era appointee
Mr_Soul_Crusher | 14 hours ago
Bill has been at BLS since the early 90s if not longer
He is entirely removed from any Trump agenda
gello10 | 13 hours ago
And his boss got fired for choosing to publish a bad jobs report. That doesn't affect someone's incentives?
Mr_Soul_Crusher | 13 hours ago
No
Not when you’re a 40 year career civil servant
Snlxdd | 14 hours ago
How exactly are we on track to beat an annual baseline measurement? Do you have insider knowledge?
sirbissel | 15 hours ago
...or that's just how revisions work, and have worked for decades. It takes time to get survey results in, and bad numbers often take longer to come in for a number of reasons...
ktaktb | 16 hours ago
Bidennnnnnn!
VacanyeraYT | 13 hours ago
The massive downward revisions are far more concerning than the July monthly loss.
When previous months get revised down by over 100,000 jobs, it proves that the labor market was cooling down much faster than the initial headline numbers suggested. This pattern of persistent negative revisions is classic late-cycle economic behavior
Much_Invite6644 | 10 hours ago
Can you explain this to me like I'm 5?
Whaddduptho | 14 hours ago
But private non farm gained.
Looking through all of those corrections is confusing when you can just look at FRED graph
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ADPWNUSNERSA
There were 50,000 lost in local government. Without those local government jobs being lost we would've posted a gain for total nonfarm.
DoughnutImportant875 | 11 hours ago
Under Republican administration, job numbers are usually revised downward. Trump must be seething. Someone has leaked the truth?
Synchwave1 | 16 hours ago
There’s nothing unexpected about it?
Most of us understand the underlying economy is cracking due to policy decisions. The stock market is the only metric holding it up at the moment and if that rolls over…. Yikes 👀
Tiny-Ebb-3598 | 16 hours ago
At this point its a ticking time bomb waiting to catch people in its radar until it inevitably detonates
Synchwave1 | 16 hours ago
I actually think it’s going to push the highs once more. I don’t know the catalyst. Maybe an Iranian deal or something to that effect. I know I’m positioned to long volatility if we reach the top once more.
That’s my plan. I hate to see it but I’ll take advantage of Trump’s stupidity like I did during Covid. The 2nd highest earning day of my life was 3/20/21.
Tiny-Ebb-3598 | 16 hours ago
I agree it will continue to push until it forced not to.
I think the inevitable catalyst will be guidance changes from big companies about the knock on effects of the war and tariffs. That will cause the mass sell off. When that maybe is anyones guess but just don't know how there can't be repercussions to these numerous market shocks. The 30 year yield is casually chilling over 5% like its the new standard. Its crazy but stocks just keep pushing. They really are in their own bubble
emtheory09 | 15 hours ago
It’ll be the inevitable shock from the US government having to drastically cut spending and/or force major changes to the structure of Medicare/Social Security.
Cappyc00l | 15 hours ago
And cut taxes for the wealthy to “stimulate the economy”
findingmike | 12 hours ago
I think it will be far simpler: concern over Dems sweeping the elections and bringing an end to:
Trump's market manipulation
Legislation to fix the casino/meme-race that the stock market has become
If true, that means investors are getting nervous over the next month or two.
Spydartalkstocat | 15 hours ago
There only like 10 bubbles out there so just need one to pop, student debt, credit card debt, medical debt, housing, food, AI, stock market, bond market etc.
"There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy" - Alfred Henry Lewis
PrinceOfDarkMatter | 9 hours ago
>"There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy" - Alfred Henry Lewis
Nine seems like a lot. I feel like I'd be pretty anarchish after missing like...four?
ReserveHour2403 | 10 hours ago
nice! are you broke now?
Synchwave1 | 10 hours ago
Why would I be broke?
ReserveHour2403 | 9 hours ago
I don’t like it when people make money! I lost a lot of money so I want to see losses
coke_and_coffee | an hour ago
I absolutely guarantee you haven’t beaten index funds
Synchwave1 | an hour ago
I haven’t tried to? My single best day was shorting the market during Covid. Most of my investments are index funds and etf’s.
pagerussell | 12 hours ago
I am coming to the understanding that the market won't have a massive correction because it has become increasingly detached from the underlying economy.
Like, it's just a gambling house now. It has basically zero correlation to the real economy.
Consider this: Tesla and Nvidia make.up almost 10% of the SP500. Those companies hardly sell anything real to actual people in the economy. Tesla is a niche car maker with pretty small revenue, Nvidia mostly sells to ai hyper scalers now.
Throw in Microsoft, apple, Google, Meta, and that is 45% of the sp500 and their combined contribution to the economy that actually touches people is tiny, all things considered. Like, it's trivially easy to go thru life and never purchase a product from any of those companies.
And yet, they are damn near half the sp500.
This tells me that the stock market, which has always been only mildly tethered to the real economy, has now become completely divorced from it. So playing that forward, I think the real economy can (and probably has) crashed, and the stock market will just...never feel it.
DoritoSteroid | 10 hours ago
Tech barely touches people? Oh boy.
NetLumpy1818 | 16 hours ago
I swear this clown has made me more money that any administration ever!
pankswork | 15 hours ago
Thats his point. If you raid the rainy day fund before a rainy day, you live like a king. Until it rains
BlackBeastMalevolent | 11 hours ago
Should be just about the time dems take office, so that republicans can point and shout, and then once again tidal wave to take back over.
Man_Darino13 | 9 hours ago
Just waiting for Dems to win back the House and Senate first
OESRecoveryEmployee | 2 hours ago
Nah, oil price is the bigger bomb. Once they realize we are using the oil reserve and we can't do it for ever oil is going to shoot up to $150. Once they figure it we are fucked. I mean it's like that is common knowledge and Trump is manipulating the market
coke_and_coffee | an hour ago
People said this same dumb shit back in 2015, lol
lemonylol | 14 hours ago
lol people thinking they can time a "crash"
Tiny-Ebb-3598 | 14 hours ago
Didnt realise i provided a time ?,
lemonylol | 14 hours ago
You provided an inevitability
AbsoluteGote | 16 hours ago
I think they will pour everything into keeping the stock market cooked until some little tiny thing becomes a catacalysmic collapse. Like someone will fail to make a payment on a used 2018 Toyota Camry and it will just collapse the whole global economy and be found that the debts have been floated by nonexistent assets and cooked books the whole time.
vodeodeo55 | 13 hours ago
If that Camry goes to auction I call first dibs.
Fluffy-Pop-3407 | 15 hours ago
The fact that banks no longer have a reserve requirement, plus the fact that banks can hold unlimited nonreportable crypto positions are what keeps my hair standing on end.
How much loss from bitcoin is being hidden by overblown AI bubble and stock gains? And what happens if the market takes a quick shock?
TenderfootGungi | 15 hours ago
Banks do not have a set ratio reserve requirement, but they certainly do have capital requirements. Here is the first article Google found on it: https://www.sifma.org/news/blog/understanding-the-current-regulatory-capital-requirements-applicable-to-us-banks
shadeandshine | 14 hours ago
Actually you aren’t far off but we are actually past that stage there’s a ton of cars and homes that banks could default on but they legit don’t know what to do with them so a lot of them are being kept form defaulting by a bank cause for now at least the person using it is providing free maintenance.
benk4 | 11 hours ago
So the economic version of this
Useful_Fee_2875 | 16 hours ago
All of these terrible business and policy choices they’ve been making are destroying the economy. They’re making us less competitive on the global stage. It’s making it more expensive for businesses to operate in the USA because the stuff that they import is too expensive and it’s too volatile in terms of what the price is gonna be from one day to the next. Companies are struggling to plan and be able to accomplish things of significant value because they’re very uncertain about the economy.
Synchwave1 | 15 hours ago
The goal seems to be trying to go back to a pre-income tax USA… so 1913. The part they’re neglecting is the type of economy we were then vs now.
We were a net exporter of goods in 1913. Today we’re a net importer. We export services but not enough to offset our import demand.
They’re taking a reasonable economic principle and fucking up the execution cataclysmically. I’m genuinely shocked at the ineptitude. Like it’s offensive how stupid they are.
Useful_Fee_2875 | 15 hours ago
Exactly they’re completely taking us backwards in terms of what makes an economy grow in today’s world. They are literally destroying the very fabric of that foundation and it’s purposeful too. They know what they’re doing. It’s just really sad because I work in sales in the transportation, industry in trucking and our revenue is down so drastically year over year it’s unbelievable unless you actually see the underbelly of the economy you won’t get how bad it is trending.
The stock market means nothing. It’s just whatever people think companies are worth. They attach a dollar amount to it and people have invested interest in keeping the stock market as long as they possibly can. It’s just a big bubble waiting to burst.
Meanwhile, the inequality wealth gap continues to expand things are becoming more un affordable and we’ve added several trillion dollars to the debt since the new administration took office. They’re doing absolutely everything wrong economically but then they have the guts to tell us that everything’s getting better it’s remarkable
TenderfootGungi | 14 hours ago
The price of a stock is whatever the last trade happened at. That is easy to game for awhile if you have enough wealthy people willing to play.
TenderfootGungi | 14 hours ago
This likely is the real goal, to get rid of income taxes on the wealthy. But tariffs only work well in a young economy that is growing its manufacturing base. It does not work well in a mature economy that has inevitably moved to slow growth in manufacturing output and moved on to a service based economy.
TwitterFingerKiller | 12 hours ago
Oh mannn you’re insane 🤣
MayorNeighs | 14 hours ago
Everything is outlined in plain-text within the "Mandate For Leadership: The Conservative Promise" (aka, "Project 2025)
The goals generally speaking are:
Weaken Blue State national influence by crippling their economic centers
Abolish the income tax and replace it with a sales tax & tariffs
Abolish virtually all regulations - environmental, safety etc
Adopt the "Unitary Executive Model" of Presidential leadership, bolstered by a SCOTUS that's been handpicked by Republicans
In accordance with the above, allow the President to rule exclusively via Executive Order (a bonus here for Republicans is that they don't have to actually sign their name to anything granting them a level of plausible deniability)
ciel_lanila | 16 hours ago
A post crossed my Reddit home yesterday or Wednesday saying despite the economy probably growing ~120k jobs things aren’t as rosy as those numbers would suggest.
I was skeptical of it for the reasons you say, but there apparently are people believed the job numbers would be positive.
defaultedebt | 15 hours ago
> There’s nothing unexpected about it?
Why do you guys always say this?
"Unexpected" when referring to economic data almost always means in comparison to a consensus figure. "Unexpected" CPI number, for example, means that the market (i.e. a consensus of experts) believe the number will be X, and when it is not X, then it is unexpected.
It quite literally states it in the article:
>The Dow Jones consensus forecast had been looking for a gain of 83,000.
That number was not reasonably close to what was reported, hence unexpected.
asr10keypusher | 6 hours ago
Because over half the people on this sub are econ tourists who have no actual formal understanding of economics. It just becomes a place for pseudo-intelligent popular upvote takes.
Like I doubt this person knows what term premia is or PMI, PPI, CPI, PCE, etc. or how the yield curve behaves in a hiking cycle or if they've even heard of DSGE.
Synchwave1 | 15 hours ago
Anyone paying attention or listening to friends or hearing trials of the job market shouldn’t have believed last month’s numbers.
I have zero faith that anything published is accurate from this administration.
I’ll listen to the Fed, I’ll watch what actual movement happens in the financial systems. The rest is theatre.
defaultedebt | 14 hours ago
>Anyone paying attention or listening to friends or hearing trials of the job market
Anecdotes don't quite cut it for me. Experts rely on data for a reason.
And doubting the numbers is quite foolish as there are no reputable economists who doubt the figures.
twenty_three_three | 12 hours ago
> And doubting the numbers is quite foolish as there are no reputable economists who doubt the figures.
This is exactly where the problems arise for laypeople. Fwiw, I'm not one of the BLS skeptics.
The premise of this discussion was the 'unexpected' results compared to the estimates by the reputable economists i.e. experts. This calls into question the authority of those experts. To claim that we should trust the official figures because of those same economists is a mental leap for a lot of people. Especially when their anecdotal experiences conflict with the report.
Synchwave1 | 14 hours ago
Respectfully disagree. Many experts do not trust this administration with data publishing and wait for objective fact checking.
defaultedebt | 14 hours ago
I don't think we can disagree about basic facts, to be honest.
If I am unable to find any economists who outright distrust government data (i.e. BEA / BLS), then either you must have a secret list of economists I've yet to have heard of, or you are not telling the truth.
Every time I have asked people to list experts who distrust the data, I have found people come up short, or simply refuse to - so I naturally conclude that these "experts" who distrust the data do not exist.
Synchwave1 | 14 hours ago
You’re welcome to make your investment decisions how you see fit. I know who or what I am interested in listening to.
I will not cling to data published by this administration because I trust nothing that comes from it.
defaultedebt | 14 hours ago
You too, but be warned, not trusting the consensus of experts comes at great risk, and not just financially. Living in a different epistemic reality has its own problems, which is what MAGA is finding out.
Synchwave1 | 14 hours ago
I appreciate you looking out 😂.
I’d argue healthy skepticism of an untrustworthy administration is a positive trait.
I trusted Bush, Obama, and Biden’s data.
digitizemd | 10 hours ago
Name one mainstream economist. We'll wait.
Leaper229 | 12 hours ago
Employment stopped being an economic metric. It’s just a social one now
karl4319 | 15 hours ago
Unless the Iran war ends with the straights reopened fully, the market will crash once the reserves get critical. At the rate it is going, that will be in September maybe October.
exvertus | 15 hours ago
The stock market will actually love this.
uncoolcentral | 12 hours ago
Yeah, the word unexpected is doing a lot of unexpected heavy lifting in that headline.
errie_tholluxe | 9 hours ago
When the shorts come sailing we will fall we will fall...
Useful_Fee_2875 | 16 hours ago
Amen. Those who know, they know the truth
I_Fuck_Whales | 16 hours ago
Any day now….. says the bears for the past 10 years…
Substantial-Elk4531 | 15 hours ago
0% and near-0% rates for a decade were something that most bears could not foresee because it was unprecedented. The final result of such a policy are unknown because it is also yet unprecedented.
twenty_three_three | 16 hours ago
There are many well-founded theories and philosophies that describe business and market cycles, contractions included. Did you accidentally end up here instead of wallstreetbets?
I_Fuck_Whales | 15 hours ago
I’m not disagreeing at all, but no one can predict when. I know people who have been on the sidelines for years waiting for the crash, and that’s impossible to predict! The market could run up another 20% and then crash 30%… impossible to say.
So stay the course and invest regularly.
Synchwave1 | 16 hours ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/s/spZSBhCihq
TwitterFingerKiller | 13 hours ago
I work in wealth management and manage a book of business of several hundred million dollars.
Can you explain these policy decisions that are creating underlying cracks in our economy?
I spend about 20-30 hours each week, for the past 13 years, reading economic data & legislation changes across the entire world so I’m really curious how I missed this.
What line of work do you do in finance?
Synchwave1 | 12 hours ago
Gross Domestic Product is calculated by adding four core economic components.
Consumption, Investment, Government Spending, and Net Exports.
GDP =C+I+G+(X-M)
Consumption - Higher unemployment lowers disposable income as more individuals lose their paychecks, while concurrent high inflation erodes the purchasing power of remaining households. Together, these pressures force consumers to cut back sharply on discretionary items and prioritize essential goods, causing overall economic consumption to contract.
Investment - Higher rate environment, lower investment.
Government Spending - total spending up considerably, spending on people lower. You’re transitioning from spending on people to spending on military. That’s a net neutral, but I’d argue a net negative.
Net exports - deep in the negative despite the tariff foolishness.
So basically every individual component of GDP is negative and we’re really just starting to see the tangible results of those decisions.
May I recommend putting the penis pump away for a bit and head back into your research 😂. Your profile for someone who manages a 100 million dollar book of business is pretty remarkable! Hat tip to you for having the time to have such fun extracurriculars.
TwitterFingerKiller | 12 hours ago
Maybe what you wrote would fly past layman people but for someone who manages a lot more than $100M it’s not gonna work 🤣
What again do you do for a living?
I like how you made some 9th grader post about components to GDP too 😭
Still waiting on you explaining the underlying decisions of this administration that are cracking the economy
So far the only thing you mentioned that touched on it was a brain dead comment on the tariffs
Also, our GDP must be free falling the way you explained it.
Wonder why it’s continue to sky rocket and we continue to see large increases quarter over quarter of it.
Really interesting because almost every institution is talking about GDP continuing to rapidly accelerate
Synchwave1 | 12 hours ago
Not a single institution has talked about GDP acceleration it just contracted in last month’s report.
I explained it pretty clearly. Higher inflation through tariffs lowers consumer ability to spend.
Higher government spending on military less on social services again hurts the consumer.
Interest rates are higher the investment into Ai and automation are the only drivers here.
Net exports continues to be deep in the red.
GDP drops from 4 late last year to 1.75 Q2 this year. It’s all policy driven what the hell are you talking about? Someone pegged you too hard last night. 3/4 of the components of GDP negatively impacted by Trumps policies.
TwitterFingerKiller | 12 hours ago
We expect weaker growth and more labor market
slack near term, but the effects of policy shocks
subside in 2026. Inflation starts moderating from
2Q26 as the tariff push fades. After peaking in 2Q26,
the unemployment rate starts normalizing in 2H26
while GDP growth picks up. We expect 25bp rate cuts
in December, January, and April as the Fed takes its
policy stance close to neutral.
- Morgan Stanley
Bank of America has raised its global growth forecasts following a fragile Iran peace agreement that has eased energy market concerns, while warning that persistent U.S. inflation is likely to prompt the Federal Reserve to resume interest rate hikes later this year.
The bank now expects global GDP growth of 3.2% in 2026, up from its previous forecast, accelerating to 3.5% in 2027
- Bank of America
Looking solely at Q2’s GDP growth rate, one would think the economy is weakening. Not so, say Ed and Elias. In fact, demand of all types strengthened last quarter, buoyed by brisk consumer spending, thanks to the Baby Boomers, and brisk business investment, thanks to the AI boom. The lower GDP growth rate was a function of surging imports, which aren’t bad news. Imports often rise in response to a strong domestic economy. … Also: As the economic engine heated up last quarter, so did inflation. The same consumer spending and AI capex trends keeping the economy vibrant are also boosting inflation, along with higher energy prices
- Yardeni Research
You’re looking like a FOOL.
Still haven’t mentioned what you do for a living.
Stick to that and stop commenting like you know this shit. You don’t.
Synchwave1 | 12 hours ago
Time will tell 😉.
I teach economics for a living you dunce. I was also around in 1999 when economic forecasts described mainstream optimism, “the unrepentent bulls” of the .com era.
I get it, you’re a Trump guy as highlighted in your post in your profile…
And I get it you can copy and paste something from analysts whose job it is to get and maintain investor confidence have plenty of sound bites.
Within months that stock market rolled over to a decade of nothingness under Republican leadership. You don’t have any assets under management you are an uneducated troll upset your guy is getting absolutely annihilated.
See economists have attention to detail. All you had to do was click to know what I do for a living. Unfortunately for you nobody with 100’s of millions of dollars in asset management is on Reddit talking about paying 2 Mexican guys $600 to move shit. So please fuck off and go away. Whatever kicks you get from this imposter syndrome is really weird. Your orange Cheeto is fucking the economy blind. Accept it.
TwitterFingerKiller | 12 hours ago
Yeah a crazy dem blinded by their Trump hate who doesn’t work in finance surely has a handle on this
zeroman987 | 9 hours ago
“Work in finance”.
You mean your daddy gave you a job managing his friends’ fun money stock portfolios.
bigkoi | 15 hours ago
Agreed. I can see it in big tech. Lots more applications. Due to fewer openings. Many of the jobs that would have stabilized job growth went to India over the past 12-24 months. Those well paying tech jobs have a trickle down effect to blue color jobs.
Keep an eye on how auto parts stores are doing as I bet we will see more people doing auto maintenance themselves.
piperonyl | 15 hours ago
I dont know if its possible for the stock market to roll over.
The amount of money we've allowed individuals and corporations to hoard is enough to manipulate the market over and over. For example, look at these AI companies shuffling a trillion fake dollars among themselves over and over.
Then you have the government taking hundreds of billions of dollars of our tax money and giving it to these corporations to subsidize entire industries.
I dont know if the stock market can fail.
rashaniquah | 14 hours ago
world cup is over
Ready-Ad6113 | 13 hours ago
The stock markets only propped up by a few mega-corporations (AI/Tech) exchanging money between themselves. They’ve effectively have so much money they created their own separate economy and country that influences us.
It’s only lasted so long because Trump has ignored any regulatory/trade regulations. Once he’s gone (or if Dems retake Congress) it’ll all collapse.
They’ve already skirted the rules so Elon can have SpaceX in our retirement accounts (our funds are his collateral) and I expect a crackdown from the SEC once power shifts.
Synchwave1 | 13 hours ago
Big industrials, space and defense beg to differ. Caterpillar has had a good run, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, etc. Energy to a degree has had a good run. There’s strength there. Just a matter of its resilience.
maico3010 | 10 hours ago
cracked not cracking.
Trump fired the people reporting accurate numbers last year and this has always been the trend. Economy numbers look not great but still positive and then 2-4 months later they revise the numbers and turns out they were all negative but again, not catastrophically so, like they're slow walking their failure into the past in hopes that the market wont care and can keep pretending things are good enough for stocks to still go up while the stilts the whole economy is built on get skinnier and skinnier.
OrangeJr36 | 16 hours ago
We've had to contend with a the problem of jobs being destroyed nearly as fast as they have been created the past years. Despite what some on this subreddit seem to think the reports haven't been particularly good, so this isn't as crazy of a result as it may seem.
Puzzleheaded-Way276 | 16 hours ago
The recent economics reports are as follows
They are nuts They make sense They are necessary It sucks
jholliday55 | 16 hours ago
Sorry this may be a dumb question, but how can the economy lose jobs and unemployment also go down? Is this just people retiring and leaving the labor force?
handsoapdispenser | 15 hours ago
Yeah labor force shrunk. People may leave the labor force for many reasons including that they've become discouraged after a long time looking but in recent years it's been an upswing in retirements. Aging population and soaring stock market has encouraged people to drop out.
jholliday55 | 15 hours ago
How does the government know when someone gives up and stops applying to jobs?
reasonably_plausible | 14 hours ago
The same way that they determine many of these stats. A massive survey of a rotating sample of households. If you report being out of work, you are asked if you have conducted any of a number of tasks within the past month, from submitting a resume all the way down to asking a friend if they know of any jobs.
If you haven't done any of the tasks even once in the prior four weeks, you are considered to be out of the workforce for the sample period.
handsoapdispenser | 15 hours ago
It's not part of the BLS survey so we don't have official numbers. It's just well-known that boomers are aging out of the work force so it's assumed but we don't have an exact figure.
A stat that I prefer is Prime-age employment-population ratio. It's the ratio of workers to non-workers aged 25-54 which should exclude the vast majority of retirees and college students. You can see the number has been strong for quite a while though below all-time highs. This report actually caused a significant drop for the first time in a while.
reasonably_plausible | 14 hours ago
>It's not part of the BLS survey
Asking whether unemployed people have conducted a job search is absolutely a part of the survey.
Admirable_Fun7790 | 13 hours ago
Are retired people considered unemployed?
reasonably_plausible | 13 hours ago
They are considered out of the workforce, not unemployed. Because they don't have a job but also aren't looking for a job.
Admirable_Fun7790 | 13 hours ago
So asking if people have retired is not part of the survey then?
MisinformedGenius | 12 hours ago
Yes, it is part of the survey, but they don't bring it into the BLS employment report.
> What is the main reason (you/he/she) left (your/his/her) last job? ... > 4 Retirement or old age
reasonably_plausible | 12 hours ago
It is a part of the survey. When people respond that they aren't looking for a job, there is an additional question for the reason why. Retired is one of the potential answers.
MisinformedGenius | 12 hours ago
Just to clarify, the survey is the CPS, conducted by the Census, and they do ask about retirement, but the BLS doesn't put it on the employment report.
insertwittynamethere | 15 hours ago
People who stop looking for jobs are no longer counted as part of the labor force.
So, retirements, deaths, discouraged workers who can't seem to find anything, chronically long-term unemployed, etc.
I'm sure someone will add more info, but that's the gist of it.
skaestantereggae | 15 hours ago
And, during an economic recovery, unemployment going up isn’t necessarily bad, as there’s more people actively looking for a job again, so they are counted in the unemployed data
3Dchaos777 | 10 hours ago
More like discouraged employees who just want to ride disability checks for aslong as possible.
Western-Review-8489 | 59 minutes ago
Do you know how hard it is to get on disability 😂
WillowgirlIII | 10 hours ago
Having the stock market at record highs certainly makes early retirement an attractive proposition, especially with the ACA making it possible to let the government pick up the tab for your health insurance.
waterwaterwaterrr | 14 hours ago
Maybe fewer people are eligible for unemployment and states are getting better at kicking people off
reasonably_plausible | 11 hours ago
Being on or off of unemployment insurance has absolutely nothing to do with the BLS definition of unemployment.
Accomplished_Crew967 | 9 hours ago
Unemployment makes it hell to let people file, people keep looking for a job but eventually give up, then they use those numbers to pad their stats make unemployment not look bad when its way worse they just make people wish they didn't file for it instead
grumpyliberal | 12 hours ago
And yet the markets are up today. Truth is the numbers are all shite now. The stock markets which supposedly have underlying value are now being manipulated like cryptocurrency. The job numbers are a catch up to previously manipulated job numbers. Between Lutnik and Bessant it’s liar poker all over again.
Harbinger2001 | 10 hours ago
Stock market likes the job numbers because all it cares about now is the interest rate and the cost of borrowing for big tech firms. Job losses lowers the chance of a rate hike.
Vibranium2222 | 14 hours ago
Good news! Kevin hassett says it's all seasonal:
"Hassett on why the economy lost 50,000 government jobs: "It was one of those weird seasonal things. Because there was a lot of snow in the winter, a lot of schools had to stay open longer for the snow days, so the teachers got laid off in July instead of the end of June."
MisinformedGenius | 12 hours ago
That doesn't really hold water, because seasonally adjusted local education numbers were down last month too, albeit just a small amount. If they were just being held over for a month, you'd expect to have seen a 50,000 jobs added number last month.
Fluffy_Charity_2732 | 8 hours ago
What kind of retard answer is that from him?
Is he saying to just ignore the 50k lob losses and the report looks good?
Were those 50k losses supposed to go to be taken seriously in the numbers?
Amazing bullshitters you all elected
sounddude | 13 hours ago
I'm sorry, but 'unexpectedly'? All I keep seeing is how companies keep laying thousands of people off, largely driven by AI replacement and then add in the clear slow down in the economy due to tariffs, rising fuel and food prices, and a violent immigration enforcement policy, how can anyone look at this and say it's unexpected? This sounds so out of touch and disconnected from everyday reality.
Tribe303 | 13 hours ago
Meanwhile, here in Canada, we added 75k more jobs in the same month. Keep in mind we're 1/10th the size of the US. Trump can't even run a trade war competently. Our GDP growth is higher, and inflation is lower than the US as well. More trade war please!
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-jobs-july-2026-9.7299225
WisePresentation7976 | 2 hours ago
Your GDP is higher because of how much oil you export, so you're also benefiting from real wars lol
Tribe303 | an hour ago
That's not the only sector that's doing well. You're right about oil though, and it's the US that's paying the higher market prices! 🤦
Ok-Budget3225 | an hour ago
Can we be your 11th province?
VendettaKarma | 12 hours ago
Canada housing though
lost-American-81 | 11 hours ago
Because housing in the States is stellar, right?
VendettaKarma | 11 hours ago
Nowhere near as bad as Canada but hey at least you have weed
lost-American-81 | 11 hours ago
I think both are greatly location dependent.
Tribe303 | 6 hours ago
It's getting better now, just as I hear more Americans bitch about housing. 😂
VendettaKarma | 6 hours ago
Unsurprisingly
ninjadude93 | 15 hours ago
Is everybody on wall street stupid? We've been getting these wow jobs numbers are great and then quiet drastic revisions for many months now. Why does anyone act surprised
knightzone | 14 hours ago
The media is acting surprised. I bet most people already knew.
Odd-Weird-5273 | 9 hours ago
Old people are brainwashed by there tvs and phones to believe the initial jobs reports while the revisions never get mentioned.
ordnance_inbound | 13 hours ago
The way that trump is destroying federal institutions and causing unprecedented instability in global markets means that we are in uncharted waters.
Most models assume past performance ≈ future performance, but that kind of trend analysis is completely shot now
lemonylol | 14 hours ago
Yeah they're so stupid, that's why you're making way more in returns than they are.
ninjadude93 | 13 hours ago
I'm doing pretty well lol
Fragrant_Entry9232 | 11 hours ago
In no way was this unexpected, if you have been paying attention. Trump ia running the us over a cliff because hes an idiot, and thats being generous.
DZello | 9 hours ago
Meanwhile, Canada added 75000 jobs during the same period, while being targeted by tarifs. There's clearly something bad happening in the US.
Canada adds 75,000 new jobs in July, unemployment rate lowest in 2 years
Top-Bandicoot-3013 | 9 hours ago
I want everything to crash and burn at this point. I feel like Americans richest class is addicted to money making at the expense of others so much to the point that it's destroying our country. We need to hit the lowest point before we can wake up and turn the ship around.
pierdola91 | an hour ago
That richest class will never pay for their greed—they’ll get a bailout and we’ll get more tent cities.
I want it to burn to the ground, too, but so long as money buys you power in this country and Americans are too chicken shit for a French-style revolution, the rich are going to prop up their money printer that is America forever.
Opening_Shame8258 | 15 hours ago
Stagflation.
Not as bad as the great depression, but it's bad. Prices keep going up, but we're in a recession and unemployment also go up. It's a nightmare for monetary policy, which is the only real tool we have in the US to plan our economy. (Assuming congress takes little to no significant action)
Edit: to be clear, I'm not here to say we ARE in stagflation, but pointing out that this is what it would start like. Continuing inflation and rising unemployment.
So, if there's some sort of shock to the system, like rising prices on basic manufacturing/agricultural necessities (like.... oil?), this could cause prices to rise. As operating expenses go up, and demand stays stagnate or reduces, companies look for ways to cut costs. In the short term, this is usually laying people off, which results in higher unemployment. Which reduces demand.
In a recession, this pushes prices down. You lower interest rates to make money flow faster, which raises economic activity and restores employment. In stagflation, lowering interest rates just pushes inflation more, and doesn't do much of anything for unemployment. You can try fighting the inflation by raising interest rates, but this slows the economy down, which pushes up unemployment. There's nothing a central bank can really do to solve it. It needs legislative action.
Free_For__Me | 15 hours ago
> Not as bad as the great depression
Yet.
MisinformedGenius | 12 hours ago
> Continuing inflation and rising unemployment.
The number of unemployed was down by about 180,000.
Opening_Shame8258 | 10 hours ago
I'm describing what stagflation IS. I am not necessarily describing what is happening now.
It's a subtle difference. I know.
Also, make sure you know WHY the unemployment was down. Care to share with the class?
MisinformedGenius | 10 hours ago
> I am not necessarily describing what is happening now
Here is what you said:
> pointing out that this is what it would start like. Continuing inflation and rising unemployment.
If "this is what it would start like" did not mean "what's happening now is what it would start like", what were you talking about? An imagined future time with rising unemployment?
> make sure you know WHY the unemployment was down. Care to share with the class?
Hard to say specifically why, really. It was down by significantly more than the labor force, so it's certainly really down.
I'm guessing, based on the "make sure you know", that you have an explanation. What is it? I'm hoping that it's not just that you were parroting something you read in an article without looking at the actual numbers.
Opening_Shame8258 | 9 hours ago
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART
Labor force participation. Not counting Covid, it's at a 50 year low and trending down.
MisinformedGenius | 9 hours ago
Oh no... so it was just that you were parroting something you read without actually looking at the numbers. Well that's disappointing. And I notice you didn't answer my first question.
Opening_Shame8258 | 9 hours ago
Lol, fed bank stats aren't stats to you. Okay bud.
Give an example of stats.
MisinformedGenius | 9 hours ago
"Fed bank stats"? FRED is a data aggregator, not where the stats come from. As the website you cited clearly states: "Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics" It comes from the same job report we're all talking about here. I genuinely mean no offense, but you need to tone down the smugness about fifteen notches - you're way out of your depth.
I am citing exactly the stats you are pointing at. I said that unemployment was down 180,000, and you asked why. As I said in my reply, unemployment was down quite a bit more than the labor force was down, so just waving your hands at the labor participation rate doesn't have anything to do with this month. That would only have relevance if unemployment dropped by 60% of what the labor force dropped by. That's exactly what I was referring to when I said you were parroting something you read rather than looking at the actual numbers. On the longer term, both the unemployment level and the unemployment rate are down over the last six months. We are not seeing "rising unemployment" by any stretch of the imagination, and just trying to band-aid that by saying the LPR declining for the last twenty-five years somehow magically makes it the complete opposite doesn't make any sense.
And I again notice you didn't answer my first question.
edit LOL... makes a snarky response about "leading by example" and then blocks me, when he was the one who started with "Care to share with the class?". Classic. Better luck next time, bud.
Opening_Shame8258 | 8 hours ago
If you want a friendly tone, lead by example. Rewrite your comment with the tone you think we should be taking.
Seriously, tone policing while writing insults. Are you a third grader?
ForeverTemporary920 | 15 hours ago
A paradox of making rich people richer by selling rat poison to the poor.
SimplyElite7 | 11 hours ago
I only really see employment going up temporarily probably in October-November for all the temp hires in retail for holiday purposes, outside of that, I'm not sure what Q1 of next year will look like, doesn't seem good to be honest.
UnderstandingThin40 | 9 hours ago
Stagflation would require inflation to spike a lot higher + gdp going negative. It’s possible, but not imminent.
Beautiful_Finger4566 | 14 hours ago
you might want to look up the definition of stagflation, because none of the conditions are currently true
you know when they WERE true? three years ago under Biden
Moldy_Birdie | 16 hours ago
So many revisions, really is a shame how inaccurate the BLS has became since covid. Probably doesn’t help that there is potential political influence as well.
>With these revisions, employment in May and June combined is 103,000 lower than previously reported.
desert_jim | 16 hours ago
No need to say potential. People getting fired because someone doesn't like the numbers says enough about the situtation
elektrik_noise | 16 hours ago
Exactly. The numbers are consistently cooked bc if the orange fuhrer in chief doesn't like the numbers people lose their jobs and have targets on their backs.
sarges_12gauge | 16 hours ago
Surely then when we look at jobs reports and revision numbers there will be a dramatic change in the trends after that happened right?
I haven’t checked if that’s the case, but wouldn’t you like to show something that would overwhelmingly corroborate your belief?
Mr_Soul_Crusher | 15 hours ago
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the employment report is measuring
It DOES NOT measure jobs created/lost
It measures total number of jobs - currently there are over 160 million jobs in the US and the revision of 103,000 jobs means that the BLS was off by 0.06% or so
This is literally not even a rounding error. This is extreme accuracy.
Fed_Deez_Nutz | 15 hours ago
Genuine question. What’s the difference between total number of jobs and jobs created/lost.
Isn’t the difference in monthly reported total jobs equal to the net number of jobs either created or lost?
gweran | 15 hours ago
When people apply the margin of sampling error in the survey it should be applied to the number of total employment, because that is what the survey is attempting to capture. In that frame, being off by less than a tenth of a percent is still fairly accurate.
But people want to use the percent change between the two as a measure of error. Saying the BLS was off by 50%. This fundamental misunderstands what the survey is capturing and how it works.
OrangeJr36 | 16 hours ago
The BLS is still incredibly accurate, they can't help that the cadence of business means that companies report later or not at all.
Moldy_Birdie | 16 hours ago
Yea, the response rate has dropped 20%? since covid and is really throwing a wrench in how accurate they can be.
Beneficial-Rip6624 | 15 hours ago
And considering this report's error margin was ~ .05%, that's still incredibly accurate.
twenty_three_three | 15 hours ago
> they can't help that the cadence of business means that companies report later or not at all.
What do you mean by 'cadence'? Employees are typically one of the larger discretionary budget items and are closely tracked. Why would that change over the last 6 years?
Perhaps they need to revisit the mechanics of how they are requesting and collecting the data?
A small portion of my job entails compiling bls survey response data (jolts, general oews). It's not that complicated at the orgs i've worked for.
OrangeJr36 | 14 hours ago
The birth death cycle
As of right now, a lot of non-traditional businesses are starting, hiring and firing staff and not reporting on time. It's hard to estimate the affects they have on other businesses, so with decreasing reporting rates you have to make do with the data that you have. This unfortunately means that you get revisions, but even then the revisions aren't that extreme in the grand scheme of the workforce.
twenty_three_three | 14 hours ago
Thanks for the link, I wasn't sure of the precise terminology for that adjustment. I'll have to spend some time to think about how post covid changes may be impacting their modeling.
For anybody interested, the birth-death adjustments for this year and last can be found here: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbd.htm
And a more technical model definition can be found here: https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/ces/calculation.htm#business-births-and-deaths
Great_Northern_Beans | 16 hours ago
This issue is really that there's political pressure to release this data early before it's ready. It's abundantly clear that there's a selection bias where the early responders aren't representative of the entire sample.
The stock market would eventually get over it if they published a month or two later. And I think that the benefit of the improved headline unemployment number outweighs this current mess of buried revisions that we now have.
MisinformedGenius | 12 hours ago
This data is released on the third Friday after the survey, which takes place on the week including the 12th of the month, is complete, just as has been done lo these many years. It has nothing to do with political pressure.
axck | 15 hours ago
Whats the point of releasing this at this frequency at all if the numbers are pointless and just get revised downwards later? Actual policy decisions are made in real time based off of this report but it’s completely inaccurate until several months after the fact
Ok-Budget3225 | an hour ago
This is SOP for the Trump admin. Always lead with rosy fake numbers and then revise downwards quietly a month or two later
Old_Criticism_6889 | 15 hours ago
Yes, since Trump has taken office from his first term, fewer and fewer companies are filling out the employment surveys so the prospective data is less accurate and the government has to wait longer for the true data to come in which of course makes it more difficult for the fed to make their decisions. They (the fed) have other data sets they can use in the interim but just not as strong as a robust government jobs report.
liverpoolFCnut | 16 hours ago
Revisions were a thing even before covid, bls numbers have always been notoriously unreliable and the gig economy is making it worse
Moldy_Birdie | 16 hours ago
There always has been revisions but they have seem to gotten larger since covid. They can’t help if businesses stop responding to them as seen with the response rate going down
mr-ron | 15 hours ago
Have they actually gotten larger? Or are you just following it more since Covid?
Appropriate_Formal64 | 16 hours ago
I just know that I know a lot of people who are 'employed' who have gone from getting 30-80 hours per week to getting 0 to 10 hours per week. So, you know, "employed" with no hours worked or paid. That's kinda it in a nutshell.
MisinformedGenius | 12 hours ago
Average weekly hours are barely down from pre-COVID and haven't appreciably moved in two years.
Nhoj | 6 hours ago
Working reduced not full time hours would also generally qualify someone for unemployment benefits , I don't know if that shows up in the jobs survey but it would show up in the UE claims.
Ok-Budget3225 | an hour ago
Look at the BLS July jobs report. The number of workers working part time involuntarily, went up by 180k. So it is not true at all that nobody lost hours.
TheGodPePe | 16 hours ago
It is not unexpected if they are cooking the books. We had gangbuster "job" reports, which all got revised down, when Trump wanted higher job numbers as evidence for his amazing job with the economy. But now that he caused an inflation crisis, he needs the job report to be bad so that they don't raise intrest rates. Wouldn't be surprised if this latest job report is revised up in the next report
carlos_the_dwarf_ | 16 hours ago
If they’re cooking the books, why do they ever release the revisions?
sdotcarter_x | 16 hours ago
The markets have usually moved on by then.
artvandalaythrowaway | 16 hours ago
To time their market moves
carlos_the_dwarf_ | 16 hours ago
Lmao
Alicyclobacillus | 16 hours ago
This guy gets it
kennyminot | 14 hours ago
They aren't cooking the books.
TheGodPePe | 16 hours ago
Because an average person isn't looking at the revisions. It is why Trump can scream SoH is open and everyone believes him. Because the avg. person isn't tracking shipping data.
carlos_the_dwarf_ | 16 hours ago
No, I mean why do it at all? Like you guys are trying to tell me that they’re fabricating the data but simultaneously feel the need to release correct data?
TheCoelacanth | 13 hours ago
Because it's much easier to get away with a lie for a month and then release the truth once everyone is focused on newer months than it is to get away with an extended coverup.
For the first, you just have to tweak the somewhat subjective methods for estimation. For the second, you have to prevent anyone from leaking the more detailed data after it has been collected.
carlos_the_dwarf_ | 6 hours ago
Dude, acknowledging the lie and releasing the evidence routinely doesn’t make it easier to get away with. You want this to be true badly enough that you’re not thinking.
CarsonWentzGOAT1 | 16 hours ago
It's because people have moved on from those numbers. You think people care about jobs reports from 2 months ago?
carlos_the_dwarf_ | 16 hours ago
You’re repeating what the guy above said. Why bother releasing them at all if we’re already making things up?
(Also, it doesn’t track with the fact that revisions go in both directions.)
stigs007 | 15 hours ago
I feel like you've been answered multiple times, but maybe don't like those answers? No one knows for sure, but given his history, and the way he flat out lies about things, I absolutely believe he'd release doctored numbers knowing full well they'll get revised, but also knowing his base won't pay attention to that or the average American aren't going to see the revised numbers.
It's essentially a bet IMO, that the initial report will gain more eyes and influence more people that things are better, and only a select few will notice the revisions.
carlos_the_dwarf_ | 15 hours ago
It’s not a matter of me disliking the answer. No one before you actually answered the question. They just told me that by the time the revisions are out people care less—that’s not a reason why the revisions come out in the first place.
I appreciate you taking a stab at it.
CarsonWentzGOAT1 | 16 hours ago
You have to for official data. It's useful for comparisons in the future.
curt_schilli | 15 hours ago
If your premise is that the administration is lying about the numbers, then they don’t “have to” release official data. The logic doesn’t follow.
CarsonWentzGOAT1 | 15 hours ago
They lie about the initial numbers to pump the stock market. Then they revise later down when nobody cares about the previous months. What do you not understand here? Is it hard to comprehend?
carlos_the_dwarf_ | 15 hours ago
Yes, to repeat your extremely tired insult, it’s “hard to comprehend” why they would decide to fake the numbers and then later reveal the evidence of their fakery.
It’s further “hard to comprehend” why revisions like this have been going on for literal decades, and, if they’re evidence of book cooking, why they’re about as often positive as they are negative. It’s hard to comprehend why you think investors wouldn’t notice or care about the pattern that’s so obvious to you. It’s hard to comprehend why the official data hasn’t veered off course from other independent data sources if it’s fake. Lastly, it’s hard to comprehend how fakery on this scale would ever work without being uncovered.
The idea that they’re cooking the books just does not stand up to scrutiny.
curt_schilli | 15 hours ago
Lol the point the original commenter was making was why bother to release the revised numbers at all if they’re just lying
Chill out
hungryhungrynippos | 15 hours ago
> They lie about the initial numbers to pump the stock market. Then they revise later down when nobody cares about the previous months.
If this is that's really going on, how do you explain the upwards revisions?
hungryhungrynippos | 12 hours ago
While you're thinking about my other question, here's something else to chew over: if they're fabricating the numbers, why would they fabricate a report that shows job losses?
carlos_the_dwarf_ | 15 hours ago
Nothing is stopping them from completely faking the data initially, but then somehow they’re obligated to release the not-fake data later?
🧐
1-Dollar-Doge-Coins | 12 hours ago
It kind of blows my mind how people here are completely misunderstanding the point you're trying to make.
H_rusty | 14 hours ago
because it would be worse if they didn't release anything at all... this way the economy looks fine, and inly the people looking at revisions would see the real stuff
carlos_the_dwarf_ | 14 hours ago
Ok so just to confirm: they fake the data, then later release the evidence of their fakery?
H_rusty | 14 hours ago
most people dont care about revisions.. as long as the initial reports that grabs the headlines are good, everybody moves on. It's not completely "fake", it's embellished to look "good". They know they will revise it down later.
It still better than not releasing the numbers at all, because people will be asking questions: what are you hiding? why nothing is being released?
carlos_the_dwarf_ | 13 hours ago
You’re really not answering the question: why not just release fake numbers and leave it at that? Why release evidence of their own wrongdoing?
reasonably_plausible | 11 hours ago
> You think people care about jobs reports from 2 months ago?
Yes. There are tons of people who go over all the data as it is released and revised to help make business and economic decisions.
chardeemacdennisbird | 10 hours ago
Everyone believes him? I guess I'm the lone person in the world that believes nothing of what he says, much less about the situation in Iran.
Whaddduptho | 14 hours ago
I don't understand why you wouldn't just look at a fred graph of the total.
Because the private sector is still gaining overall and you can easily see it by looking at the graph.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ADPWNUSNERSA
Total nonfarm included the 50,000 lost in local government and that's the only reason it went negative.
The average person does not read these reports.
Ok-Budget3225 | an hour ago
Because, like the Chinese government finds out with population numbers- eventually you have to reconcile the numbers. The more you lie about the numbers, the further you depart from the factual numbers and people will be able to point out the discrepancy and the lie.
Mr_Soul_Crusher | 16 hours ago
Every month I have to come in here and explain just how impossible it is to fudge these numbers
The only way they can try to “cook the numbers” is to stop funding BLS .. which is what they’ve been doing for years now.
However, fewer funds for survey results only adds variance and they can’t choose if the numbers are over or under reported.
These reports are produced by hundreds of workers from the point of collection to the actual statistical modeling and writing of the report.
The commissioner of the BLS doesn’t even see the report until ~24 hours before it’s published. In fact, the report is already loaded into the system for publication before the commissioner ever sees it.
There are hundreds of thousands (if not over a million) worksites that voluntarily send their employment data
So this conspiracy to cook the books is some agreement between hundreds to thousands of people to falsify millions of data points?
guesswho135 | 15 hours ago
I'm not the guy saying the books are cooked, but aren't these mostly based on survey data? The revisions are based on employment data.
Mr_Soul_Crusher | 15 hours ago
Not quite - the revisions are done once even more survey data has come in
When BLS releases benchmark employment data those revisions are based on QCEW data and not surveys
Hacking_the_Gibson | 15 hours ago
This is not a zero trust system.
The entity which collects, tabulates, and reports the data controls the entire pipeline. You would have a point if they released the entire raw survey data, but they do not.
Mr_Soul_Crusher | 15 hours ago
Once again, you don’t have a gd clue how it works
Not a single business would submit its data if the data were published for the world to see
State level employees, who are not BLS employees or even federal employees, have access to the employment data for their state and can participate in producing the report.
The BLS doesn’t have a Trump stooge installed.
Literally nothing you say has any basis in reality.
Hacking_the_Gibson | 15 hours ago
Lol, you clearly do not secure systems against bad actors if you believe that a centralized entity cannot be corrupted.
Simplifying things down, if the entity that controls the data pipeline received a single survey response, what would stop them from just adding 5 jobs to that response and reporting accordingly?
Mr_Soul_Crusher | 15 hours ago
I just explained how it is not centralized
But please go give your 2 brain cells a workout since you think that thousands of career feds are all in on this conspiracy to make Trumps job report look … so bad??
Hacking_the_Gibson | 15 hours ago
The raw survey data goes into a singular entity responsible for controlling it where the only oversight that exists is part of that same entity.
The only way to independently verify the accuracy of the entire pipeline would be if the raw data was released alongside. It could be anonymized fairly easily, so the idea that response rate would go down is silly.
Mr_Soul_Crusher | 15 hours ago
Did you read nothing I said?
Holy fuck this is my last response
EVERY SINGLE STATE HAS NON BLS NON FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WHO VIEW INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT REPORTS AND BLS ESTIMATION RESULTS BEFORE THE REPORT IS WRITTEN OR FINALIZED
THEY SEND COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS
somasomore | 16 hours ago
The conspiracy crowd always has a justification. If it was a good jobs report, it's because elections are coming up soon. Bad, it's because of interest rates.
handsoapdispenser | 16 hours ago
This report should be the final nail in the coffin of everyone saying they are cooking these reports.
1-Dollar-Doge-Coins | 12 hours ago
Nah, those people just shift to, "imagine how much worse the real numbers are!"
Common_Shelter_4605 | 15 hours ago
Agreed. What is also worth thinking about is that current capital spending in AI build out is temporary, but the jobs being displaced by AI is not. So keeping rates where they are or even cutting rates will likely destroy jobs in the medium term, the converse of what has historically happened.
vertigo3pc | 11 hours ago
"unexpectedly"
US Nonfarm Payrolls: Initial vs Revised, 2024–2026 Numbers in thousands of jobs. Source: BLS via St. Louis Fed (ALFRED vintages for initial, FRED for current).
Since January 2024, before this report, the revisions are listed above. The largest revisions include May 2024, and January 2025 with over 190k revisions.
Just looking at the jobs since January 2025, it's 1784k jobs added initially, and 668k jobs verified, revising down 1116k jobs. Over the scope, verified jobs were down half from initial reports, and under this Administration, verified jobs were down 1/3 of what was initially reported, meaning job creation is slowing.
And now, for June 2026, they are reporting adding 20,000 jobs, which was revised from higher. And for July, they're reporting a loss of 23,000 jobs, which may be revised further lower. February 2026 saw -92,000 jobs initially, with -156k jobs lost being the revision after the fact.
>The unemployment rate edged lower to 4.1%, but was due largely to a further decline in those holding jobs or looking for work.
A decline in "those holding jobs" (laid off) and a decline in those "looking for work".
>Worker pay was nearly flat in the month as well, with the 12-month increase in average hourly earnings slipping to 3.2%, the lowest since May 2021.
Fewer jobs than reported, and no wage growth at a time when we're seeing unprecedented inflation.
So are we ready to discuss how the US economy is propped up by data center spending, and we're dangerously far out "over our skis" right now with the lack of economy by the largest segment of the population?
ambuj1tripathi | 11 hours ago
From the article itself
Even before Friday's report, Americans were saying they were unsettled about the labor market. Subdued hiring and layoffs have left many feeling stuck. In recent months, more than a quarter of the unemployed have been looking to work for more than six months. That number declined in July, which can sometimes mean that people stuck in long, frustrating job searches have given up altogether. In a July consumer survey from the Conference Board, a research group, 24.6% said jobs seem plentiful, while 21.5% said they are hard to get-the least favorable split since 2021.
Candid_Cat_5921 | 12 hours ago
I really think a large part of this may be due to so many people “working under the table” now. I know so many people who now work as movers, nannys, landscapers, handymen, etc., who do it all without being on the radar of the federal government/IRS. To the government, it looks like those people lost their jobs or left the labor market.
I’m one of them. I saw a post on Reddit about some guy growing sunflowers and making nearly 100k a year with little effort. So last year I turned a half acre into a sunflower patch and sell sunflowers along with photography slots, and I’m making about $50k a year off the table in mostly cash. Like everybody else I’m turning to the “side gig” economy to make ends meet.
MisinformedGenius | 12 hours ago
The problem with that theory is that the household survey was also down, which should catch people that are leaving formal employment.
WillowgirlIII | 10 hours ago
Use your noggin. If someone from the government is asking you questions about your work, are you gonna tell 'em you work for cash? D'oh!
ReserveHour2403 | 10 hours ago
when are you going to pay taxes? you need to pay atleast 50% tax
DoritoSteroid | 10 hours ago
Also gig work. The gig economy obfuscates the real job market situation.
Automatic_One_5709 | 7 hours ago
Eh, not everyone owns the land to do something like that and normal people lack the creativity and hard work to be a substantial gig worker. I’d like to see some data that proves this before I believe it.
Tiny-Ebb-3598 | 16 hours ago
Fired Erika for constant less than appealing job numbers and countless amount of backdated revisions. You love to see. Can't put lipstick on a pig as they say
stigs007 | 15 hours ago
I know how hard people say it would be to falsify the data, but firing her couldn't be for nothing. I can't see him firing her and then just letting the numbers be released accurately.
95Daphne | 14 hours ago
Knowing Trump, what you've seen with Iran, and the way the BLS works and why it hasn't been working as well lately (read, for close to 6 years), it actually isn't as hard as you think to come to the conclusion that it was for nothing.
The firing was because he didn't like Erika and wanted "his" guy. Nothing more, nothing less.
In the meantime, he still hasn't gotten "his" guy, there hasn't been an exodus from BLS that would suggest something suspicious is going on, and they continue to struggle with response rates not being fast enough as they have since 2020.
Aware-Technician4615 | 15 hours ago
Unexpectedly??? Look at the last 5 months job growth numbers… in the chart CNN has on their page under this headline. They’re in a perfectly straight line exactly toward this loss!!!
SubjectCode1940 | 16 hours ago
So, I’m assuming the actual number is much lower. It must be really bad if the best number they can give Trump is a negative number. I’m sure he’ll blame Biden or Obama, never his fault. What happened to the golden age of jobs?????
furMEANoh | 16 hours ago
Please explain, in an economics subreddit, what basis you have for making the statement you just made?
Apoxie | 15 hours ago
Several months in 2026 were adjusted down after revisions, including may and june. So its likely july will also be adjusted down.
Ok-Budget3225 | an hour ago
Cause May and Jun numbers just see big downward revisions. So it is a trend.
bootchmagoo | 15 hours ago
Zero basis - just another smooth brain redditor who reacts on politics than facts
ChewyHoneyBadger | 16 hours ago
Trump wants a lower number, he needs the fed to not increase rates and a poor jobs number helps that narrative. Frankly they could have pressed for a lower number
Affectionate-Panic-1 | 16 hours ago
Interesting tid bit is that the official unemployment rate actually fell in this despite the job loss.
If immigration keeps tightening, and as the population ages, it'll become more common than not to see the jobs number go down while the unemployment rate is stable or dropping.
koolmagicguy | 16 hours ago
Does the unemployment rate track undocumented workers? I doubt it. Much more likely is that people fell off due to being out of work for too long.
MisinformedGenius | 12 hours ago
As long as you continue to look for work at least once every four weeks, you are counted as unemployed into eternity.
And undocumented workers can be tracked by the survey but they tend to be transient and hard to survey.
Affectionate-Panic-1 | 15 hours ago
Well both that and an increasing number of folks retiring.
wrpnt | 16 hours ago
We have a position open in my university department and I’m on the hiring committee. Normally we’d have about 12 applicants to review. This time around we have 50.
kierkieri | 15 hours ago
Lucky your university is hiring. Mine is on a hiring freeze and they recently laid off 30 staff members. More layoffs expected in September after Census confirms lower enrollments.
sliceoflife09 | 15 hours ago
Over 2 trillion in market cap has been lost. I'm pretty sure job losses were expected. Why is traditional media so soft? Who are they coddling with that headline?
talino2321 | 15 hours ago
Think about who owns the traditional media now.
2 of the 4 are owned by MAGA aligned corporate overlords (soon to be 3). Fox is a whole owned propaganda arm of the GOP/MAGA.
Is it any surprise?
Xerxero | 12 hours ago
Because they are all owned by billionaires.
sithren | 13 hours ago
which market? ustsm?
WeekendAtMadoffs | 28 minutes ago
Offshore workers spent years learning AI while Americans spent years complaining about it.
Add lighting fast starlink and teams now no place on earth is too far to hire in at a fraction of what an American wants.
Tripleawge | 16 hours ago
We are headed toward a new 1970s style stagflation event. Just like then they had an oil crisis coupled with unemployment that kept increasing while nominal gdp only marginally rose so too will the same metrics behave today
MisinformedGenius | 11 hours ago
You mean real GDP. Nominal GDP rose massively during the 1970s due to enormous inflation. Of the ten years with over 10% nominal growth since World War 2, five occurred during the 1970s.
itec745 | 16 hours ago
Been thinking about the same idea too. The stagflation cycle lasted for almost 10 yrs from 1973 to 1983.
ForeverTemporary920 | 15 hours ago
short bonds.
RevolutionaryNose236 | 15 hours ago
People really need to remember that Trump fired folks at the BLS reporting accurate numbers.
We should expect the actual figures to be much worse.
Beautiful_Finger4566 | 14 hours ago
Trump fired the person who had two consecutive years of INACCURATE reporting
RevolutionaryNose236 | 12 hours ago
Source please.
Beautiful_Finger4566 | 12 hours ago
I literally provided the link
RevolutionaryNose236 | 12 hours ago
“Trump claimed without evidence that McEntarfer had manipulated statistics for political reasons.”
Sure it was the largest revision, which is sus, but revisions are part of the process.
thom_mayy | 11 hours ago
If Trumpers understood the process, they wouldn't be a Trumper. Ignorance of the process and faith in Trump is all they have
Local-Anteater8122 | 10 hours ago
That link doesn’t have data or evidence that revised reports were inaccurate.
RFK_Cum_Regimen | 8 hours ago
Says Trump, which means the claim is automatically invalid and rightfully dismissed.
Kingalec1 | 16 hours ago
Is July is usually the worst month for the US economy . Literally, every month is usually average but July is always the worst or signals a recession is imminent.
Puzzleheaded-Way276 | 16 hours ago
Look up Sahm Rule
When this last occured in 2024, we then split jobs into more units of wages, increasing the total supply of labor units.
Labor units have been Decreasing, this would mean either.... A large influx of jobs are going to be created from the recent/future cuts which is now, again, experience diluting wage inertia +they are about to dramatically increase the monetary base that workers will be paid in... A double dilution... And this doesnt just make utility positive bc of the math rule anout negatives, other thinge will drastically change....
If we avoid a recession itll be because they have just what they need to keep us held where were at, and if not, its bc someone inevitable "fked up"
MassiveBoner911_3 | 15 hours ago
The S&P 500 and the Nasdaq opened higher on Friday after data showed the U.S. economy unexpectedly shed jobs last month, raising doubts about a September interest-rate hike by the Federal Reserve.
aesthetics4ever | 14 hours ago
The probability of the Fed tightening falls because of this report
LiminalSapien | 14 hours ago
Unexpected?
Who was not expecting this? A fucking preschooler who can’t spell economy?
I get that they said jolts was strong in June, but the economy as seen with your eyes has been painting a different picture for fucking months…
Impossible_Swing_224 | 14 hours ago
anyone else find it suspicious that we seem to have alternating unexpectedly good and bad jobs reports? it’s almost like someone is manipulating the data ( but not outright fabricating) to give a good jobs report every other month at the expense of the intervening month. Am I crazy?
Iroquois_Plisken01 | 14 hours ago
Unexpectedly? Interesting headline. I truly thought the numbers would have been much higher. I guess we'll know more when they revise and publish the updated numbers.
getmeoutoftax | 16 hours ago
It will only continue as more companies adapt to AI. Even something as simple as a Copilot premium subscription is enough to make employees insanely more productive and reduce headcount.
Jujubatron | 14 hours ago
When they release good numbers "They cook the numbers there's no way". When they release bad numbers "See I told you economy is bad". Everything that supports doomerism I guess.
VendettaKarma | 12 hours ago
If they’re actually reporting negative it’s probably 10x in reality
BathroomMaximum1721 | 15 hours ago
The silver lining to the cloud is that the Fed will remain on hold at least for the remainder of 2026.
Both goods and services inflation are likely to slowly decline as businesses keep the lid on prices to maintain market share in a weaker demand environment and the labor slack keeps wages in check.
We should see 10 year yield slowly decline towards the 4% level which would mean lower mortgage rates.
ChewyHoneyBadger | 16 hours ago
Trump wants a bad jobs report. I would not be shocked if the jobs report was doctored to get a lower number. It’s all about keeping the equities markets humming
PanzerKomadant | 16 hours ago
“Unexpected” lol. Lmao even.
Everything about the numbers being published is BS. The admin is pushing out numbers that are “nice” to look at. But shit is getting so bad that they can’t even outright lie about it.
No-Wasabi-70 | 14 hours ago
This is really bad huh? I’m a dummy when it comes to economics like this, and in my own isolated bubble I thought things weren’t that bad. But then they kept delayed reports. I only paid attention to my 401k to be honest
reasonably_plausible | 11 hours ago
> But then they kept delayed reports.
What are you referring to here? There was a single delayed economic report due to the government shutdown, but it hasn't been a continuous thing at all.