It isn't. ADP reported 22K. I'm sure whoever reported it can run through the gymnastics they used to calculate it but it doesn't reflect the reality the metric is designed for.
They fired all the people who gave accurate numbers now they're just Trump lackies who will get fired for being the messenger of bad news. It's a complete shill.
They revised down numbers in 2025 by hundreds of thousands of jobs (there have already been multiple downward revisions, they did it again). This new report will almost certainly get corrected
Along with a huge revision: "The U.S. labor market added only 181,000 jobs in 2025, revisions released Wednesday show. Previously, initial data showed that the U.S. economy added 584,000 jobs. But more granular state data available on a lag led to steep revisions."
What is the chance this 130,000 will be revisioned down to a tiny fraction in a couple of months?
Edit: Final revision for 04/24 - 03/25 revised down to 898,000. Great job voting out that Biden economy y'all.
The media is complicit. The "good news" from the Administration is always spammed with glossy headlines. The revisions are typically given a blip, at best. That it happens with every report is deeply suspect.
"Ya know, some people who we won't name and definitely aren't us might maybe think maybe proudly posting a video depicting a former African American 'President' (WITH THE MIDDLE NAME HUSSEIN MIND YOU) and his 'wife' as Monkeys and then proudly doubling down on it as not a mistake and saying actually it's true migggghttttt maybe maybe sound a little... insensitive? BUT WE AREN'T SAYING THAT EXACTLY! We're just reporting that maybe the possibly funny and clever cool thing that Kin-I MEAN PRESIDENT Trump posted might get taken the wrong way and lead to someone wanting to SLAM the act verbally - but those people might also be absolute traitors to the country because that's a very strong accusation toward the leader of the country who regularly gets accused of doing things like that (or so we've maybe heard sometimes stated by people who may be wrong). But let's pivot over to what that stupid fucking bitch AOC says about it - God she is a dumbass, right?" - Mainstream Media, basically
Iâll take that bet. My bet is youâre right about the downward revision, but AP and Reuters will at least run stories about it. Probably WSJ too, paywalled.
I mean every month Trump has been in office has now come with a negative revision on the job report numbers so Im not betting against your assessment lol
With the immigration stuff going on we're not in population growth anymore, so it takes less jobs. But yeah, the economy is in a bad place and the numbers are probably cooked.
The data from the BLS was reported in the same way it always is, tbh I think the bigger problem here is people on reddit get their news from CNBC rather than from reading the actual reports. They'd have seen this if they did that.
Agree with everything you said, u/RIP_Soulja_Slim, but the bigger issue is why does the BLS swing and miss so badly.
The same exact thing happened during the Biden Administration. The job numbers were frequently revised downward by similar magnitudes.
I don't care who is in office. How is an administration supposed to make competent policy decisions when the data you are relying on has such a huge margin of error?
> Agree with everything you said, u/RIP_Soulja_Slim, but the bigger issue is why does the BLS swing and miss so badly.
For what it's worth, they don't. They're extremely accurate, but people don't really understand the jobs reports or statistics.
In stats, if you need to measure something like a change from period 1 to period 2 you can't just go out and collect a lot of data about that change. You need a reference start and end point.
So what the BLS does every month isn't asking what jobs are added/lost. They're asking what the total amount of employment is in month 1, then doing it again in month 2, then applying the change (with some statistical tweaks).
So your margin of error isn't "well it was 130k now it's 30k", the margin is "total employment was first measured at 165,630,000 and is now measured at 165,530,000" The margins of error here are generally close to 0.1% or less, but do have some larger outliers.
Here's also a good explainer of methodology and why revisions happen: https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2025/bls-investigation-challenges-yes-rigged-data-no
Also, it should be noted that on a relative basis, as in relative to the labor force, the margins of error we're seeing today are lower than any point in the BLS' history. They're just a lot more politicized now, and unfortunately a lot of redditors are gobbling up white house rhetoric without knowing it.
You can almost see it curving back down in real time as institutions and individuals process through the data to realize that the revisions from last year also mean the current numbers are at least as bogus and will be revised down in a few months as real data rolls in from the state level where they can't manipulate it.
I've been saying this in this sub for some time, and am still vindicated by reality but many here will not want to hear it: if you are banking on some sort of collapse, crash, or drastic shift in economic/financial conditions as a sort of political referendum, you are going to be disappointed.
It's not that the President isn't doing detrimental things, it's that the economy and markets do not respond in the way so many of y'all seem to think they do.
Markets are down, because a strong labor market reduces the odds of an interest rate cut. A weak jobs report, but not a collapse, would have been better for the stock market.
I might be wrong but just a few days ago they were reporting how it was the most layoffs in January since 2009. Wonder if these numbers will be revised too
After watching this shit for a year it is no longer as funny, now it is also just sad. We expect some corruption but it is still supposed to be COMPETENT corruption.
Even the FED members stated they simply can no longer use trumps data as anything other than a joke among themselves.
No, my ass was still firmly attached while laughing at the report. The sheer incompetence of the numbers does not allow me to laugh as hard as it really should generate. It is just that the lie should be at least believable you know, this is straight out of a fantasy novel and not even a good one.
I'll wait until the revised number comes out. Based on precedent from this Administration, the real number will be lower (potentially a lot lower). There are also independent indicators that are worth taking a look at for context.
If all of those validate these job market growth numbers in a stable/healthy economy, great. There's very little reason to assume this based on today's report, however.
There is a gap between unemployment and 'labor participation'. Basically if you haven't actively looked for a job in the past month you don't count as 'unemployed' anymore because they no longer consider you a part of the workforce.
Additionally, this number does not capture the much larger 'under-employed' group. If you have done ANY paid work recently you count as 'employed' even if that's just a single doordash order you are no longer 'unemployed'.
>Â Basically if you haven't actively looked for a job in the past month you don't count as 'unemployed' anymore because they no longer consider you a part of the workforce.
This has always been the case. We donât want to count, say, stay-at-home moms or retirees or students as unemployed. And anyway, we track the very thing youâre talking about, and the labor force participation rate looks fine especially in the prime working age demo. For a low LFPR to be masking a high unemployment rate, weâd have to actually have a low LFPRâso this hypothesis doesnât make sense.
>Â Additionally, this number does not capture the much larger 'under-employed' group
Again, the U3 unemployment rate has never captured underemployment, so itâs still useful to compare over time. But also, we do track underemployment with the U6 rate⌠which is also low.
Tis a mystery! Iâve been trying to reconcile the unemployment number with reality for months. Apparently all the people getting laid off are either drivers for uber DoorDash instacart or spark. Or the numbers are absolutely lies
Layoffs have been heavily publicized, but they are still pretty low historically.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTSLDL
The lack of new jobs is the much bigger issue.
>Or the numbers are absolutely lies
Or... People who are fired or new workers unable to find work are a part of the ~500,000 person increase in the unemployment rate we've seen over the past year... Just because overall unemployment is still pretty low, doesn't mean it hasn't been increasing.
My young adult college kid is having a hell of a time trying to find a part time job. Applies everywhere and no calls. He was supposed to be on a CoOp rotation for school but over half his class couldnât find one. Typically itâs around 95% of students find one. What company wouldnât want cheap college interns? Turns out when you cut all the funding for research and upend manufacturing with tariffs, companies donât even want cheap labor.
It's more than not wanting cheap labor, it's the competition. At my job, we posted for a position that only pays $26/hr (I live in a HCOL area). We received over 100 applications. People with undergrad and graduate degrees were applying and it only required a High School diploma and 3 years experience.
Why would a company hire college student or recent graduate when they have people with years, if not decades of experience applying for the same job at the same rate? The job market is severely broken.
Without considering political interference, there is a problem with the data collection not accurately reflecting reality due to a large company bias. Small businesses under respond and respond late. They are also the first to feel the effects of a slowing economy and least able to absorb tariff and other political chaos inflicted.
Having said that, the biggest recent monthly revision was -133k last June. That would wipe Jan payrolls out completely. Not saying that will happen but it is precedented.
I'm more interested in the cause of the variances:
Possibilities.
Overestimation of Small Business Growth: Analysts believe the models overestimated hiring by smaller firms during the 2024â2025 period.
Delayed Recognition of Economic Slowdown: The initial, high-frequency data was "too generous" in the second half of 2024 and early 2025, failing to recognize the slowdown in job growth as quickly as the comprehensive QCEW data did.
Re-calculation of Seasonal Factors: The BLS recalculates seasonal adjustment factors for months like May and June to account for shifting hiring patterns, which can lead to large, one-time downward adjustments.
Incorrectly Estimated "Break-even" Rate: Because of high immigration in 2023-2024, the number of jobs needed to keep the unemployment rate from rising (the "break-even" point) was initially misunderstood, making the labor market appear stronger than it was.
Except that it obviously is. All this "incorrectly estimated" talk is nonsense. Anyone who thinks they are doing their best to get real numbers and not just ~~borrowing~~ stealing job numbers from 25 to add on to 26 should go check a show I watched as a child "Lost In Space".
The reasons for discrepancy and revision are a totally valid thing to be interested in, but you may be missing the point of the comment you're replying to. The issue is not that the numbers were revised. The issue is that at the same time we learned about a positive headline-number for January, we also learned that 2025 dramatically underperformed what had previously been reported. When it comes to assessing the current state of the economy, the latter fact is much more significant than the former and is worth calling attention to. Job growth dropping by a factor of 5 from 2024 to 2025 has major implications for the economy.
All of the months last year were revised down, about 55,000 on average. Media reporting these "better than expected" headlines fails to note that these initial estimates are consistently too rosy.
My city has a mayor who shows similar characteristics to Trump. One thing that I noticed he has done - over his almost 20-year reign - is that he announces projects left and right. 90% of them never get done - but people believe that he is effective because he is always announcing more and more things.
Yeah, all this seems way more rosy compared to the way that the world seems right now. I just sat through my town's budget review for mid physical year and though it isn't drastic, sales tax revenue is down 3% from last year... I can't imagine that we have more jobs with less overall revenue.
That is the number people should be looking at, the 12 month average, and then break the first and second month averages and trend. Monthly data is meaningless.
There were two giant revision under joe biden as well, -800k in 2023 and -500k in 2024. Post Covid Jobs data is spotty at best and has been the norm the last three years.
exactly. it's increasingly clear that these numbers are complete bullshit. we're supposed to believe that January added nearly as many jobs as all of 2025.
Yeah, this was to be expected since this administration openly stated 8 or 9 months ago they'd be changing how the numbers (all metrics on the economy) are reported. Just like grading on a curve, or omitting certain... unsavory details.
I donât see your quote in the article linked. And as for your edit, the article says it was âlowered BY a total of 898,000â, which implies Bidenâs numbers were heavily inflated.
WSJ: "The Labor Departmentâs Bureau of Labor Statistics on Wednesday said that the U.S. added just 1.5 million jobs in 2024, well below the previously estimated 2 million. In 2025, it said the labor market added only 181,000 jobs, versus the previously estimated 584,000."
You gave a new unlinked quote to support the previous unlinked quote. And the 2024 numbers donât align with your first comment. Maybe because the date range differs. But the lack of consistency and support makes validating your comment harder. With so much misinformation surrounding this topic, especially given your comment being the top one on this thread, if you are going to give âfactsâ you should provide more support.
I already said WSJ. How difficult is that really: https://www.wsj.com/economy/jobs/job-growth-last-year-was-far-worse-than-we-thought-heres-why-4308db41
Literally the first thing that pops up if you google "2024 job creation US".
It is reported everywhere:
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/january-jobs-revisions-trump-rcna258398
584,000-130,000=454,000 jobs they can just add on randomly to make the job market look better in the coming months. Desperately pulling numbers from anywhere now that someone has finally claimed it is his economy now not the other guy he blamed for the past year. It's a real shit show for sure and we have a large percentage of voters who believe all the bs and cheer it on and will vote for more. LOeffingL.
I'm not the conspiratorial type, but this administration has politicized everything at this point, lied to the public about things that were captured on video, as plain as day. Given that the jobs report is strongly associated with the perceived success of the administration, it is hard to believe there wouldn't be strong pressures to bias the numbers in a favorable light. This behavior is the hallmark of his brand.
To be more accurate, that revision was for the 12 months ending March 2025 - so mostly in the Biden years. Apparently that was âin line with expectationsâ so it wasnât headline worthy. Itâs also noteworthy that government jobs shrank, which is actually fairly good news if youâre a deficit hawk.
No, the revisions are benchmarked to March 2025, but the revisions are carried forward to the most recent jobs report (and actually backwards a long way too). From the jobs report:
>In accordance with annual practice, the establishment survey data released today have been benchmarked to reflect comprehensive counts of payroll jobs for March 2025. These counts are derived principally from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), which counts jobs covered by the Unemployment Insurance (UI) tax system. The benchmark process results in revisions to not seasonally adjusted data from April 2024 forward. Seasonally adjusted data from January 2021 forward are subject to revision. In addition, data for some series prior to 2021, both seasonally adjusted and unadjusted, incorporate other revisions.
As has been pointed out we are talking about two separate things. From the articleâŚ
âThe BLS also released final benchmark revisions for the year prior to March 2025. Those numbers saw the initial counts revised lower by a total 898,000, about in line with expectations.â
Thatâs clearly talking about mostly 2024 numbers.
The point I was making is that this downward revision wasnât the âlead headline.â Because it was mostly in line with expectations.
We're not talking about two different things - the article is simply wrong. Parsing details from financial articles whipped out in an hour or so is a mug's game - they get small things wrong all the time. As the actual job report says: "The benchmark process results in revisions to not seasonally adjusted data from April 2024 forward."
They provide a table in said jobs report showing the changes for every month in 2025 due to these revisions, it's at the very bottom of the summary page. I'd copy/paste it but it doesn't format well.
> "In addition to the monthly numbers, the BLS released final benchmark revisions for the period of April 2024 to March 2025. Those numbers saw the initial counts revised lower by a total 898,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis. That was a bit lower than the 911,000 figure for the initial estimate last September but around Wall Street expectations."
Sounds to me there are two set of revisions with overlapping time frame.
CNBC is simply wrong here. If you look at the jobs report summary page, at the bottom, you'll see the following text, "The benchmark process results in revisions to not seasonally adjusted data from April 2024 forward", along with a table showing the revisions due to the benchmarking for every month in 2025.
There were revisions for the April -Dec 25 period, separate revisions for Apr 24 - March 25, then overlaying both of these were changes to seasonal adjustments running back to 2021. Finally, there was a new methodology used in January for the first time that should eliminate some of the overestimating we normally see. In short, itâs a mess.
For those crying about the administration and these numbers, itâs a long-standing BLS problem that pre-dates Trumpâs second term and has nothing to do with politics. If you want to be serious about economics, leave your biases at the door
WSJ: "The Labor Departmentâs Bureau of Labor Statistics on Wednesday said that the U.S. added just 1.5 million jobs in 2024, well below the previously estimated 2 million. In 2025, it said the labor market added only 181,000 jobs, versus the previously estimated 584,000."
Not sure where you get four times as much. 2024 also had more than eight times the job creation of 2025.
Read the report. Job gains are in three sectors, healthcare, construction and social assistance. Healthcare was led by a 50k increase in ambulatory services. No freaking clue how much longer healthcare is going to be able to power the numbers. As so much I can tell weâre not adding high paying jobs so much anymore.
Explain; why do you think boomer spend is better for economic productivity? Boomer spend is on things like healthcare which wouldnât create long term economic productivity. Keeping people alive for longer who donât contribute to the workforce seems like a drag on economic growth
Where inheritances would go to working age adults who could then do things like buy a house or start a business; instead those people are currently working the services jobsâŚ
Gen X here. My healthcare spending went up a bunch this decade, and I'm sure I'm not the only one getting procedures done for the first time in their lives.
My older Gen X inlaws and their friends are getting gutted. Knee replacements and surgeries among the active ones, breast, skin, and colon cancers are abound, both my sister in laws had immune system issues from their eating disorders in their teens and early 20s when liquor replaced food so they could be hot, a couple of their friends got osteoporosis younger than expected that they suspect was from a similar situation, the works.
> why would it matter which generation is spending?
Inheritance isn't "spending." We're far better off with Boomers buying sports cars and fake tits rather than adding another 1mm to their kids' retirement accounts.
> Boomer spend is on things like healthcare which wouldnât create long term economic productivity.
It drives the largest middle-class labor pool in the economy.
Yeah you are hitting on my point. If our economy is being driven by sports cars, fake tits and having young people caring for old people while the rest of the world is focusing on science, technology and infrastructure; we are going to become like every great power before us, completely irrelevant on the world stage.
Home ownership for young people is at historic lows and people are having fewer kids (and at later ages), all because both are unaffordable; if we want to have a solid future we have to invest in the people who are going to make it
I don't really understand the take from the commenter you're responding to. If a 35 year old couple inherits enough to buy a house, or are given one, then all that money they are saving for the house (that used to go in the landlords pocket) goes to new cars, home reno, home decorating, etc. It's a lifeline if financial freedom that frees up a valuable demographic to spend instead of save.
You're only viewing it from the position of the inheritor. The economy as a whole is much stronger when consumption flows into productive jobs/services.
Um yes? I just explained how consumption flows. I've spent over 150k on tools, furniture, paint, contractors, appliances, etc. over the last 8 years when I bought a house with great bones from an elderly couple. The silent generation had tight wallets, they're not investing in their property with diversidied outlays to the degree 50 and unders might.
Can you define âproductiveâ? Iâm wondering if thatâs our disconnect, having more hospital administrators due to increased senior spend will look good on a balance sheet and ultimately gdp, but what does it accomplish?
> If our economy is being driven by sports cars, fake tits and having young people caring for old people while the rest of the world is focusing on science, technology and infrastructure; we are going to become like every great power before us, completely irrelevant on the world stage.
Medical advancements on Boomers is science and tech. You think it's an accident US firms led the world on COVID vaccines?
Inheriting Boomer spending in a trust account is not as economically productive as spending it. You keep skipping over the most important engine in growth, labor. Boomer spending drives huge swaths of the economy into productive jobs.
> Home ownership for young people is at historic lows and people are having fewer kids (and at later ages), all because both are unaffordable; if we want to have a solid future we have to invest in the people who are going to make it
You're confusing ideological beliefs with facts. There's no evidence birth rates are going down worldwide because of affordability. If anything the exact opposite is true. People now have the means to get fulfillment out of things other than popping out 5 babies per household. Housing is wildly different today than in generations past. Boomers grew up buying crackerbox homes with minimal amenities and tons of unpaid labor. They had one family car that required constant maintenance.
⌠do you think the people who inherit boomer wealth will just keep it in a trust instead of, idk, spend it? Thatâs a massive assumption you have to make for your argument to work, and I donât think itâs a solid one
The OP is complaining about Boomer medical spending like it's not powering the single most important labor field - healthcare. No assumption is necessary. If kids spend money instead of the parents that's still spending.
We arenât spending on research like we did pre COVID and other countries are increasing their spend as the US proves to be a bad trading partner. I donât think it was an accident we were able to do that; I do think itâs foolish to think we are capable of doing that after the hatchet we just took to the system you are praising.
I donât think I buy your trust fund perspective; the founders I know of have had seed funding from family (often in the form of trusts).
I didnât say birth rates worldwide are going down; the OP was about the US economy, and in the US birth rates are at historic lows (1.6); with housing affordability as the biggest reason why people are putting off having kids. The average first time homebuyers are now 38, thatâs pretty late for starting a family.
Who do you think is going to be driving the economy in 20 years if we donât invest in it today?
>I didnât say birth rates worldwide are going down; the OP was about the US economy, and in the US birth rates are at historic lows (1.6); with housing affordability as the biggest reason why people are putting off having kids.
Birth rates worldwide are going down, and far more rapidly than they have in the US. People say housing affordability is why they're putting off kids.
> Boomer spending is way more economically productive than inheritance
absolutely - it's objectively true that boomers spend but their children do not. the main reason is that their children buy too many iPhones and avocado toast, while somehow not spending. this is why economics requires advanced degrees - it's very complicated.
The aging population is going to be increasing for a long while. Only the very youngest Americans are likely to see those elderly numbers decrease in their lifetime.
I don't think those coming soon (or, like, me) will be able to afford the same access to healthcare to prop those industries up. Boomers got their old age socialized and I don't expect many more of us will.
The problem with healthcare is that itâs not as responsive to demand as other sectors, and even more so with federal (Medicare) and state (Medicaid) plans. Reimbursements are not keeping pace with inflation nor costs (tariffs) at at some point Gross is going to completely stall out. Iâve been working in healthcare for 20 years and Iâm seeing the beginning administrative changes again to what we were going through in 2007 in 2008. My guess is that the healthcare job growth that weâre seeing now is compensatory for the inability to hire, pay for, and retain more qualified personnel (ie unable to pay for a pharmacist so you hire a tech instead and redistribute job responsibilities to better meet demand).
I keep waiting on all that manufacturing growth to hit.
The economy has been shot with a tranquilizer dart, but it's still resilient and doing what it will do. None of the things that are trending upwards are the areas that public policy in the last year has been trying to improve and frankly are not exactly the sturdiest foundation we should hope for.
Healthcare for example is foundational, but it's not hard to argue that we already spend way too much of our GDP on healthcare compared to everyone else. And that is the baseline, before we get into the demographic stress of the baby boomers needing more care. We are also building massive infrastructure around AI at the moment, which means jobs and money, but it also is putting a lot of eggs in one basket for a yet-unknown return. It could become the 21st century industry that drives US dominance for decades to come, or it could be so-so or burst. It would just feel better to be taking that bet if more of the meat and potatoes parts of the economy were looking healthier.
We're spending 18% of GDP towards healthcare at least it's creating jobs. I don't how how sustainable that spending is or wise considering no other developed nation spends more than 12% while insuring their entire populace.
Healthcare employs a lot of people. And a lot of it is people making middle to upper middle class salaries.
The things that drive up costs can also provide jobs. For example, hospitals need people to submit claims properly for payment while insurance need people to review claims for approval / denial. Hence the denied claims that people complain about, are jobs provided for someone.
All those all of those bureaucratic jobs will be replaced by AI in a year.
Filing and processing claims is already mostly automated. Only a matter of time before the human intervention on the complex cases is no longer needed.
I work for an insurance company that has been trying to make AI work for claims, policy changes, and surrenders processing for about 6 years now. The best the AI can do so far is *kind of* sort incoming "paperwork" and it doesn't do that very well.
If you donât believe me, read this. https://shumer.dev/something-big-is-happening
I work in IT. Last year, AI was bad. Now it can write software code for an app in a few hours and test/debug that same code before giving it back to me.
I work in security for a FAANG company that constantly tries to push AI into anything and everything - AI is another force multiplier, not a direct replacement for labor.
Companies trying to fully replace workers, processes, and workflows with AI agents are going to largely fail to do so.
"Â For example, hospitals need people to submit claims properly for payment while insurance need people to review claims for approval / denial. Hence the denied claims that people complain about, are jobs provided for someone."
Basically bullshit jobs. It would be more efficient to have them do actual medical work.
I worked for a major insurer for many years. The vast majority of claim processors are already overseas contract hires living in Jamaica, the Philippines, or India. And even if those werenât the case, insurers have been plowing head-on into AI and RPA to reduce those headcount expenses even further. Iâm disconnected from the industry now but I canât see how claim processor would be a growing department in any way.
~ $1 trillion goes to admin costs. Anywhere from 20-40% of total spending is on admin costs depending on the source. Most of it is definitely not labor.
That is just labor for admin. It's not fake money disconnected from wages.
> US health care administrative spendingâdefined as all activities in support of the delivery of care, including payment transactions, back-office corporate and operational functions, customer and patient services, and administrative clinical supportâis approximately $1 trillion annually.1
Most is spent on âhospital careâ I linked an easy to understand chart of spending from the ama. CMS and other sources show roughly the same levels.
Its sustainible in the medium/long term. Probably 2ish decades of realatively steady jobs before the large cohort aging right now mostly passes away and then there will be some large scale changes
>As has often been the case for the U.S. labor market, health care led job gains in December, adding 82,000 positions. Social assistance also rose, up 42,000 as the two categories were responsible for almost all the net job creation. Construction saw a gain of 33,000 following a year in which the sector saw little increase.
Right - and what's possible is that the economy is not creating entry level healthcare and construction jobs so much as refilling them after a year of intense ICE deportations. It'll be interesting to see if there's new development in construction, or just year-old projects being started up again.
no, it's a really short article with not much analysis. We'll have to wait a bit and see if someone more enterprising in data analysis can determine whether there really is job creation going on or if Trump's economy is just..."they took our jobs!"
But I suspect its more the latter than the former given the fed spigot's been vastly reduced. I don't think many people, even in agriculture and construction, realize how much of their industries are subsidized and/or the starting capital comes form the gov.
construction shouldn't be a surprise either, AI Data centers are basically all of the construction happening right now. there is like nothing else going on but these monstrosities
Not true. A lot of the construction jobs are associated with Biden's IRA, which sent a ton of money into infrastructure investments over something like ten years.
Yeah and the reason this is a problem is that most health care (more than 50% now) is paid for by the federal government. So we're looking at deficits getting even worse, interest on the debt getting worse, and a much reduced standard of living for the average American.
Young people are increasingly existing to take care of the expanding elderly population who get all the government benefits while paying almost none of the taxes - especially with seniorsâ property taxes being slashed
They also changed the methodology in 2026 for how they gather the statistics. The birth-death model specifically (businesses opening are âbirthsâ, businesses closing are âdeathsâ). Not to mention the unemployment rate, at least in the state where I live, does not consider factors like what constitutes a livable wage, and considers part-time employment as employment. Donât trust any of it.
That's pretty much expected with an aging population and the AI build-out happening at the same time.
Older people require a lot more resources and care than younger citizens do, so as a society grays you'll see more workers shifting from more productive sectors to health and elder care. This is something we've been seeing for a long time now.
The population average age is increasing - it's a safe bet this trend will continue until boomers are mostly gone in another 5+ years. You are correct with it not being high-wage/skill roles too; it's going to continue to be services requiring minimal certifications and training.
An interesting metric here - Millennials outnumber Boomers, but Boomers have so much wealth tied to their generation, especially as compared to Millennials, that their impact on the economy is still much larger.
Did I say 5? Or did I say 5+? Do you plan on killing off your fellow boomers in under 5 years or will it take at least five years as I indicated so clearly?
Your reading comprehension is significantly below what is acceptable.
>Healthcare was led by a 50k increase in ambulatory services. No freaking clue how much longer healthcare is going to be able to power the numbers.
I work in the healthcare space and not much longer. I have seen many ambulatory locations consolidate. When they consolidate that means layoffs as they don't keep redundant staff. Due to this consolidation those 50K jobs could be temp staff that were hired to make the consolidation of two locations to one smoother.
Healthcare is a necessity so it will continue. Fewer people will pay higher prices, some can afford it, some canât but the demand for healthcare personnel will still be there.
There were a lot of freezes in hiring and reduction in new grad numbers for nurses after Big Beautiful Bill got passed. Usually hiring freezes are seasonal, but it pretty much lasted from Summer 2025 to present.
Demographic factors will continue to drive growth in healthcare. Older people just need more services, and a lot of those services can't realistically be automated away. There is certainly room for a lot of back-end stuff to get automated or replaced by AI or whatever, but patient-facing is going to need actual people for the foreseeable future.
>No freaking clue how much longer healthcare is going to be able to power the numbers.
Months at best.
Once the cuts from the big beautiful scam bill hit, healthcare and education are going to fuck those employment numbers up. That abomination cuts $1T from Medicaid alone.
The Challenger number CNBC was referring to was the Y/Y number meaning...jobs cuts rose 117.8% from January 2025 - January 2026. This was the highest Y/Y print since 2009. Most headlines are just noise trying to invoke emotional trading.
They are just announced, becuase company A announced layoffs in Jan, it doesn't mean all the layoffs happened in that month.
For example, HP announced 6,000 layoffs in Nov, so Challenger would have reported that in November. But those layoffs aren't scheduled to be finished until end of FY 2028.
We are also seeing that quite a few of the layoffs are targeting highly paid people who are late in their careers. Many may be getting large severance packages, while others may just be deciding to retire early.
The other thing to note, 106k across an employment base of 163 million in the US, is a rounding error.
The final note is that the job data doesn't reflect new hires due to retirements. Which roughly is running around 300k a month.
>Why does this seem to tell such a completely different story compared to this other article?
Headlines can really change your opinion on the news. That's why it's so important to get your news from a trustworthy source. Thank you to garble garble for sponsoring this comment. Use the code in the description below to get garble garble percent off your monthly subscription.
/end-joke
Sorry, I apparently watch too many videos on the Internet, and they all seem to be sponsored by a certain news aggregator site. Your comment read like the segue into one such ad spot.
Unemployment and layoffs donât really align ever.
Plus most of the big layoffs from big companies include severance, canât collect unemployment until the severance is done.
That's not true. In general most US states allow for collecting unemployment benefits while severance is paid out. It's not reported as gross earnings, at least not in the state that I'm in.
Not in TN. I received a 2 week severance when I was laid off. Despite filing a UE claim on the first day, I wasn't eligible for any type of unemployment until after the severance period.
I was earning over 200k a year at my job. I got the "maximum" unemployment benefit. It was $325 a week. It lasts an entirety of 12 weeks total in a 365 day window (not calendar year).
How they expect anyone, no matter what your economic level, to survive on that is insane.
When I was laid off years ago I had to sign a contract that I could not file for unemployment if I took the severance. I also was required to notify them if I got a job and the severance would end. It was also to be paid along with the normal paycheck schedule instead of a lump sum.
A good number. But as always I would wait for the revision (or the revision to the revision) before celebrating. And again Healthcare is doing the heavy lifting. An aging population is going to grow that sector no matter what is going on in the broader economy.
Iâm inclined to trust this since 139k-108k (January reported layoffs)= 31,000 jobs and thatâs probably being generous due to underreported unemployment.
Not a single month saw a positive final revision. And the revision that dropped today eliminated 2/3rds of the overall gains.
We'll get the final numbers for December next month, and then in the Summer they'll do a final revision for I believe March 2025 through February 2026 which is appears likely to wipe out the remaining 181k
ADP releases their own numbers so itâd be almost impossible to fudge on a large scale without glaring red flags. And if those flags were raised the market would suffer more than a lackluster jobs report.
Iâm not disagreeing with you, Iâm just saying that they canât get away with it.
Iâm sure Trump will claim that unemployment went down 5000% at some point if he hasnât already, but the department itself has a rough idea of what it can get away with and what it canât.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. We will not have a recession and/or an increase in unemployment while the federal government is running a nearly $2 trillion deficit, year after year. And this is not a political point, most of the spending has very little to do with who is in the White House or Congress.
Basically, our policy for the past 20 years has been for the federal government to backstop everything, individuals, jobs, companies, etc. It's the bailout economy. That means that the U.S. economy now is no longer reliant on the business cycle, but on the ability of the Treasury to issue debt at relatively reasonable yields.
That's our leaders' greatest fear. If yields blow out, and investors worldwide are no longer willing to lend money to the U.S. at 4%, we're in big big trouble.
It's fine for the Federal government to spend money, but it should be done to increase productivity through science, innovation, new energy, etc. Instead all Republicans are doing is lining the pockets of Trump and his cronies. Bidenomics intended to grow America, Trumptrashenomics is bankrupting it.
Thatâs bullshit and you know it. I intentionally wanted to avoid politics because thatâs right not our fundamental problem, but you canât help yourself
No, pretending that one party represents all thatâs good and the other represents all thatâs bad is why weâre where we are.
Has either party made any meaningful attempt to reduce spending and get our fiscal house in order? Has either party really done anything about the fact that our corporations have sold out our people to increase profits by offshoring?
When you're comparing policy, thats politics, no? Economics impacts more than those in one's immediate social circle, no? The parties ABSOLUTELY have diametrically opposed ideas of how to enact economic policy, and acting like many of our political issues don't revolve around a certain parties obstruction tactics is disingenuous.
Politics is inherently a part of economics and discussions thereof. You can say what you want, but perhaps you could have made an argument with support to back up your initial claims. Economics is the dismal science for a reason. This isn't physical science we're talking about. This isn't mathematics. If you dont like it, I dont know what to tell you.
Economic debate has been politics since the term politics was created.
Just for fun, so I'm not wasting hours of my time, I ran this through perplexity.
"Policies that clearly lifted âregularâ AmericansMost of these are associated with the U.S. left or with crossâparty coalitions moving in a more socialâdemocratic direction.New Deal/Great Society safety net: Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare/Medicaid, and related programs dramatically cut oldâage poverty and provided basic security that supported consumer demand.���Proâlabor institutions: High union density, strong labor standards, and wartime/earlyâpostwar wage policies raised wage floors and compressed wage gaps, especially between the middle and the top.��Financial regulation: New Dealâera rules limiting speculative finance reduced crises for decades; later research links financial regulation to both greater stability and less extreme topâend income shares.��Mass education and public investment: Heavy public spending on schooling, college access (GI Bill), and infrastructure supported productivity growth and upward mobility, particularly from the 1940s through the 1960s.��Progressive taxation episodes: When top rates and capital taxes were higher (e.g., midâcentury, and again with Clintonâs 1993 tax increase), revenue rose without killing growth, and the 1990s saw very strong expansion and even budget surpluses.��An example: after Clinton raised top income-tax rates in 1993âa move heavily opposed by conservativesâthe following years produced what was then the longest peacetime expansion, strong job creation, and multiple federal budget surpluses.ďż˝Policies that hurt the middle class the mostThese are mainly elements of the postâ1980 conservative/neoliberal agenda, though some had bipartisan backing.Regressive tax shifts and âtrickleâdownâ: Large cuts to top income and capitalâgains taxes since the early 1980s increased afterâtax incomes at the top, widened inequality, andâover decadesâhave not produced the promised broad wage surge; instead, inequality has surpassed Gilded Age levels.���Weakening unions and labor standards: Policy and business choices that reduced union power, eroded bargaining rights, and allowed the real minimum wage to fall explain a large share of the rise in wage inequality and the gap between low/midâwage workers and the top.ďż˝Financial deregulation: 1980sâ2000s deregulation amplified the top 1% share of income and contributed to financial crises, which impose large costs on ordinary workers through unemployment and lost wealth.��Persistent high unemployment bias: Macroeconomic policy that prioritizes very low inflation over full employment has kept unemployment above its estimated ânaturalâ rate for long stretches, which directly suppresses wage growth for middleâ and lowâwage workers.���Trade/globalization design: Trade and capitalâflow policies exposed manufacturing and midâskill workers to import competition without equivalent labor protections, adjustment aid, or bargaining power, pushing many into lowerâwage jobs.���Policyâenabled employer power: Lax antitrust and weak labor protections allowed high laborâmarket concentration, so many local employers face little competition for workers, limiting the ability of workers to switch jobs for better pay.ďż˝"
Notice anything?
"So, historically, the most successful policies for lifting broad American living standards have been the New Deal/postwar social insurance, proâlabor, and progressiveâtax regimes traditionally associated with the left, while the most damaging for ordinary workers have been the longârun package of highâend tax cuts, deregulation, and weakened worker bargaining power associated with the conservative economic turn since the late 1970s.�����"
This reads like a victory lap for one ideology while ignoring the bill that came due. Yes, Social Security, Medicare, the GI Bill, and similar programs helped a lot of people. No serious person disputes that. The problem is you are treating the outcomes as proof of good policy while acting like the financing does not matter.
Both parties built an entitlement state they refused to pay for. Expansions of Social Security, Medicare Part D, the ACA, and COVID relief were all bipartisan. Now interest on the debt is larger than defense spending and growing faster than anything else. A program that lifts incomes while being funded with borrowed money is not prosperity, it is a national credit card.
The Clinton surplus example is selective history. Those years had a tech boom, post-Cold War defense cuts, and a Republican Congress that restrained spending growth. The moment spending accelerated again, the surpluses disappeared. That does not prove raising top rates automatically creates growth, it proves context matters.
You also blame the 2008 crisis and inequality entirely on deregulation while skipping the government side. Fed cheap money, Fannie and Freddie guarantees, and housing mandates all distorted risk. Dodd-Frank then concentrated power in the biggest banks instead of helping regular borrowers. That is not exactly a free market morality play.
Union decline and wage stagnation are driven far more by automation, demographics, and exploding housing, healthcare, and education costs than by a simple story about neoliberalism. Those high costs come from heavily regulated sectors. Globalization lowered prices for the bottom half of the income scale, and most manufacturing job losses came from technology, not trade.
The real squeeze on the middle class today is not that taxes on the wealthy are too low. It is cost disease created by policy. Zoning blocks housing, healthcare is controlled by cartels, subsidized loans inflate tuition, and energy permitting drives up utility bills. Those systems are bipartisan and protected by interest groups.
The postwar boom was a demographic and geopolitical anomaly, not proof one party discovered the perfect formula. Both sides spent decades making promises without paying for them and used easy money to hide the gap. Arithmetic always wins.
Reducing poverty with borrowed dollars is not success, it just moves the due date.
That needs to be done when the economy is in a strong place. Trump and Bush are the only ones on the last 30 years to have that opportunity, and they completely abdicated responsibility.
To be honest I thought in 2009 we were cooked after the ARRA and never thought we could quadruple the debt in the next 16 years with seemingly no catastrophic failures
So, in simple terms, last year, for the whole year, we added 181,000 jobs. OK, seems low, but totally believable. Essentially ~2/3 lower than actually reported. That part is not good.
But, based on the economic situation over the last year, as I said, believable.
The part that is unbelievable is the January job numbers showing 130,000.
One month.
~72% of ALL the job growth of 2025.
Smells fishy. I just can't believe any data coming out of the administration at this point. And all of this reinforces my belief that we are in a period of economic chaos, and in such times, modest, conservative economic choices are the smart move. Bitcoin, AI, and even gold, at this point, are probably bad places to be putting your focus. Keep your powder dry. Even though cash is not returning much, your focus should not be on increasing profits as much as it should be on minimizing losses. We are not out of this, by a long shot.
The underlying signal from ADP, JOLTS, Challenger, and the hiring rate all still point to a labor market that's barely treading water and the +130K is probably (mostly) a statistical artifact.
Seasonal adjustments over-corrected because fewer holiday workers were hired (fewer January layoffs than the model expected), warm weather helped, and BLS switched to a new birth-death model with this release. Every other data source (i.e. ADP at +22K, record-low hiring plans from Challenger, weak JOLTS, and the fact that every single month of 2025 was revised downward) says the real labor market is weak.
Healthcare alone has been carrying the entire economy, and without it, private sector job growth has been essentially zero.
AI Data centers are propping the bubble up as well and hiding the reality. 5 companies spent a combined 400+ billion on AI data centers last year, with 700 billion planned this year... insane amount of money on something so useless
I think they were being sarcastic, meaning the money is not being spent on something useless, but something very specifically designed to remove people from payrolls.
Can't search for myself at the moment. Can you elaborate on the new "birth-death model"? Is that births and deaths of the US population, or birth= new jobs, death = lost jobs?
The problem is we canât trust the numbers anymore from an Administration that does everything to appease an ego that is so easily hurt by any semblance of bad news. The well is tainted.
Stock market booming, jobs numbers great, profits soaring.
Yet everyone I know is struggling.
I make very very low 6 figures but mortgage and college and heating and grocery and health insurance/deductibles (no major health issues either) seem to keep me struggling. I am lucky enough to have enough to put into savings and retirement but Iâm sure as hell not living large. My car is 20 years old so not even a car payment.
And everyone says the job market is soft, too.
Macro numbers arenât matching my micro experience.
Anecdotally - I have a fair number of former coworkers and friends who are unemployed right now after having been employed for 20+ years. They have been job hunting for months with nothing to show for it.
I have never had more than 1 or 2 unemployed friends looking for work in my lifetime. Now I have almost 10.
The system is set up to trigger downward revisions because the businesses reporting quickly are those doing well. Businesses closing down don't report at all and don't show up in the data.
I do think itâs curious that the expected range was between 30-100k. I heard that number this morning and called it 65k, right down the middle. Yet somehow the actual number is exactly double that? Smells fishy.
I wasn't fully watching with 2018, but I can just SMELL the 2018-ish vibes here. The big differences here are that oil is lower, rents are falling, and companies are eating more of the tariff cost.
There is a good shot we actually wind up under the magical 2% CPI number.
They said to âlower expectationsâ yesterday. Is that why they are saying âhigher than expectedâ today? This is absolutely laughable and still a terrible number.
Fascinating report. The unemployment rate of every major group was flat, except teenage unemployment plummeted 13.6%.
Then there's this:
>In January, the number of people not in the labor force who currently want a job decreased by 399,000 to 5.8 million. These individuals were not counted as unemployed because they were not actively looking for work during the 4 weeks preceding the survey or were unavailable to take a job. (See table A-1.)
And, of course, the gains come mostly from Health Care and Individual/Family Services:
>Health care added 82,000 jobs in January, with gains in ambulatory health care services (+50,000), hospitals (+18,000), and nursing and residential care facilities (+13,000). Job growth in health care averaged 33,000 per month in 2025.
>Employment in social assistance increased by 42,000 in January, primarily in individual and family services (+38,000).
>Construction added 33,000 jobs in January, reflecting an employment gain in nonresidential specialty trade contractors (+25,000). Employment in construction was essentially flat in 2025.
Though the construction is good, which has been rare in the this Trump administration.
Just kidding. Hopefully this will be the year. The border cities and the big cities have not voted in a cohesive manner, but once they do, it's over for Republicans.
I was getting enthusiastic there until you see the end of 2025 and start of 2026 crash from the Trump Tariff scare. Itâs recovering because Trumpâs been distracted with other bullshit.
Powell already specified the issue with job numbers. It's the birth death model. He would have seen data to confirm this before making a public statement. That's likely the cause of the 2025 revisions. And likely why the Jan would be revised downward.
The birth-death model estimates net job gains or losses from new business openings ("births") minus closures ("deaths") that aren't yet captured in the BLS's monthly payroll survey of established firms.[1][3][4]
Core problem
It relies on historical averages for jobs per new firm, but post-COVID shiftsâlike fewer startups, lower jobs-per-new-business (e.g., gig workers registering as solo "firms"), and more closures during slowdownsâled to systematic overestimation of ~60,000 jobs monthly in late 2025, per Powell.[2][3][4][5] This fueled large downward benchmark revisions, like the -403,000 to 2025 payrolls.[10]
Application to January 2026
Today's report uses BLS's newly updated model, which incorporates fresher monthly data for better accuracy and less lag.[11][9][4] Analysts estimate it shaves 30k-50k off the +130k headline, implying true gains closer to 80k-100k, continuing the overcount pattern Powell flagged but with reduced bias going forward.[9][12][10]
Citations:
[1] The âbirth-deathâ model: What can it tell us about the economy? https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/10/09/the-birth-death-model-what-can-it-tell-us-about-the-economy
[2] Fed Chair Jerome Powell Says U.S. May Be Drastically Overstating ... https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/1pjmq7a/fed_chair_jerome_powell_says_us_may_be/
[3] Case for more Fed rate cuts could rest on 'systematic overcount' of jobs https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/11/case-for-more-fed-rate-cuts-could-rest-on-systemic-overcount-of-jobs.html
[4] Fed's Labor Market Assumption Surprise - The American Action Forum https://www.americanactionforum.org/daily-dish/feds-labor-market-assumption-surprise/
[5] US job growth through March was significantly weaker than ... - CNN https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/09/business/us-bls-jobs-preliminary-benchmark-revisions
[6] [PDF] Transcript of Chair Powell's Press Conference -- September 17, 2025 https://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20250917.pdf
[7] Is the economy losing jobs? The Fed's rate cut hints at bigger worries. https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20251212238/is-the-economy-losing-jobs-the-feds-rate-cut-hints-at-bigger-worries
[8] Live Updates: Jobs Report May Offer Clarity on Uncertain Labor ... https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/02/11/business/jobs-report-economy/after-a-year-of-sluggish-hiring-2026-could-be-off-to-a-stronger-start
[9] US job growth likely picked up in January; unemployment rate ... https://www.reuters.com/business/us-job-growth-likely-picked-up-january-unemployment-rate-forecast-steady-44-2026-02-11/
[10] Job Growth Was Overstated, New Data Shows - The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/11/business/economy/january-jobs-report-revisions.html
[11] Employment Situation Summary - 2026 M01 Results https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
[12] US job growth accelerates in January, unemployment rate falls to 4.3% https://www.reuters.com/business/us-job-growth-accelerates-january-unemployment-rate-falls-43-2026-02-11/
The bar is set so low for these folks. All they have to do is put out a number as many of you have mentioned then just revise it as no one will be paying attention. When you put a lie out there it's believed whether or not you come out and say it was wrong. The damage is already done.
Câmon man. Apparently most of that accounts for gov jobs. Private sector jobs are less than a quarter of that. Admin cookin tf outta those numbers and people turn a blind eye. Weâre so hosed.
If you believe the numbers. It's doubtful in this administration. Especially since the ones reporting know they'll be fired if orange man doesn't like what they report.
Lmao, but the last Administration reported millions of new jobs were added and it was a lie, the last a administration reported crime was going down and it was a lie, the last administration reported the border was closed and it was a lie and youâre commenting on what this Administration reports? Sounds like you have TDS to me.
Not a current administration supporter, but last administration definitely put out false numbers. Perhaps not intentionally, but this is easily findable and reported.
Are the numbers accurate? Itâs already been established that Trump will fire any jobs report that isnât favorable. This feels like an exaggeration based on the many announcements of layoffs and other information
Navarro said yesterday that we should expect jobs numbers in the 50k range instead of the 6 digit range. I guess if you drastically lower your expectations, these numbers look really great. Thats how the Trump administration does things. Really, really lower, and I mean throw out all expectations of anything positive.
"On wages, average hourly earnings increased 0.4% for the month, 0.1 percentage point higher than expected, and 3.7% annually, in line with the forecast."
This is the most important line in the entire article is the last line of the entire report. That the average hourly earnings of Americans only increased by 0.4% for the month,.
"According to Google AI.
0.4% of a cent is equal to 0.004 cents, which converts to dollars, according to standard decimal to percentage calculations (). This tiny amount is equivalent to of a single cent or roughly 4/100,000 of a full dollar. For context, this is a fraction of a penny (0.004 cents). 0.4c=0.4á100=$0.004 )."
3.7 of a cent (0.037 cents) is equal to**$0.0003** (or 0.037 cents), as 1 cent is $0.01 and 3.7% of that is a tiny fraction of a US dollar, far less than a single penny ($0.01), specifically 37 ten-thousandths of a cent. It is less than four-hundredths of a penny.
âSo the entire article comes down to this, not a lot of money and not a lot of jobs. This is pure propaganda by the government, written by a team of researchers whose sole job is to sit around and write reports on how to make shitty results, look good to please Trump. The fact that there are no independent organizations reporting on the facts that we can trust, which is far more disturbing thing then the results themselves. It all comes down to âWho is watching the Watchersâ. If only a 130,000 thousands jobs were added to the job market in January that is only 0.0371429% of the population of America, again not a lot. Roughly 0 per person for everyone living in American math again according to AI. Maybe it's not, but it doesnât sound like a great number of jobs to me, considering they didn't list job losses.
Factually we know these numbers have been manipulated higher. There is no job growth and inflation is >10%. We are reaching âBaghdad Bobâ level of gaslighting from the regime on the economy which is rotten to the core and only works for right wing billionaires.
You mean the guy that Trump appointed to replace the guy that was fired because he wouldn't cook the books for Trump? The guy that literally only has his job because he will play ball? I'm sure he's legit.
>Q: Do you think Trumpâs firing of the commissioner and his harsh criticism of BLS will impact upcoming employment reports?
>A: The acting commissioner, Bill Wiatrowski, is a career civil servant, incredibly dedicated and a skilled leader. So, I donât think [Trumpâs actions] will affect the way the two surveys are conducted and how the data are processed unless there is an outside attempt to interfere with its operations.
>Allison Nathan: What would you say to those who worry
about political influences on the data?
>Erica Groshen (Ex-BLS Commissioner): As weâve discussed, BLS data production is a
highly automated, factory-like process. Raw data from
employers run through estimation routines that produce the
final tables without personal judgement or interference. All BLS
staff are career civil servants, with the sole exception of the
commissioner who is appointed by the president for a four-year
fixed term. But the commissioner has minimal involvement
with the data production process. When I was Commissioner, I
didnât see the numbers due to be reported on Friday until the
prior Tuesday night or Wednesday morning. And I only saw the
final tables. So, the commissioner has no way of altering the
figures or even accessing the underlying data or models
necessary to do so. Such intervention would require fundamentally changing BLS procedures and systems, which
are purposefully built to safeguard against such manipulation.
>"Our job is to deliver economic data guided by law and statistical practice ânot partisan whim," they wrote in a statement read aloud at a rally outside the Labor Department's Washington, D.C. headquarters on Friday morning by Helen Lurie.
While you may be correct in believing the numbers won't be cooked, we are also led by the most corrupt and inept administration the us has ever seen.
Am I really going to take someone's word who works for this administration and trust it? Absolutely fucking not. They have politicized nearly everything, to the point people don't believe health officials either anymore.
Nobody should be bragging about 130,000 jobs be created. It is actually kind of pathetic when you consider how much god damn money this administration is printing.
The narrative is we have a fascist regime terrorizing American communities and doing immense damage to our country's standing in the world, regardless of what the jobs numbers are for a month
They fired the people who create these numbers as soon as Trump entered office. He replaced them with his own people loyal to him and him only. I would not trust a single number produced my the Trump administration.
I know that you often try to correct people's misconceptions on how statistical work is done, and that the current Chief of the BLS is an old trusted Vet.
We also know that they got their budget slashed by 20% early '25, so they were forced to increase the number of imputations from 10% to 30%. They had to reduce collection in two cities and halted entirely in Buffalo. The answers to it's surveys has declined from ~74% to ~58%. They have also recently tweaked the Birth death model to keep it up to date.
Combined with the insanity of first the pandemic, and now the chaotic 2025 it's not surprising that the quality of the data has degraded. That sentiment isn't coming only from us "Reddit intellectuals" but has also started to increasingly filter out from the professionals.
I commend you on trying to increase the knowledge of how statistics work and it's limitations, but the fact remains that things really are that grim for the lower earners in the population.
Tom Homan was also an Obama appointee. So was Michael Flynn.
Some people are absolute shitheads but are willing to put aside their shittiness in exchange for greater power. Once in the position of greater power, they unleash their latent shittiness upon the world around them.
>Q: Do you think Trumpâs firing of the commissioner and his harsh criticism of BLS will impact upcoming employment reports?
>A: The acting commissioner, Bill Wiatrowski, is a career civil servant, incredibly dedicated and a skilled leader. So, I donât think [Trumpâs actions] will affect the way the two surveys are conducted and how the data are processed unless there is an outside attempt to interfere with its operations.
Like, do you really think every government agency, independent board, federal office, works and functions identically? They don't, and very obviously so. That's why the BLS Commissioner isn't called the Secretary of State, and why the Administrator of the EPA isn't called the Vice President. They're different roles, in different parts of government, with different limits, different functions, and different governance structures.
> unless there is an outside attempt to interfere with its operations
These people tore down the entire East Wing of the fucking White House on their own whim, and they got away with it.
You think there aren't thousands of people involved in making sure the East Wing didn't get bulldozed? Making some numbers fit a narrative is a goddamn cakewalk comparatively.
>Allison Nathan: What would you say to those who worry
about political influences on the data?
>Erica Groshen (Ex-BLS Commissioner): As weâve discussed, BLS data production is a
highly automated, factory-like process. Raw data from
employers run through estimation routines that produce the
final tables without personal judgement or interference. All BLS
staff are career civil servants, with the sole exception of the
commissioner who is appointed by the president for a four-year
fixed term. But the commissioner has minimal involvement
with the data production process. When I was Commissioner, I
didnât see the numbers due to be reported on Friday until the
prior Tuesday night or Wednesday morning. And I only saw the
final tables. So, the commissioner has no way of altering the
figures or even accessing the underlying data or models
necessary to do so. Such intervention would require fundamentally changing BLS procedures and systems, which
are purposefully built to safeguard against such manipulation.
You, and many others, consistently show a fundamental lack of understanding of how statistical agencies operate. Yet, you so confidently comment on it? For reference, no such changes in methodology or procedures has occurred.
Hmm following the 3-6 month time line..... Companies started firing everyone Nov,Dec,Jan just like when Trump Fired the Government workers it took 6 months before Revisions showed up and .....(They were Fired) im betting on we are about to many people classified into the Seasonal section as BBB is now Kicking in. Which will show they are working and not getting Government assistance even though they are.... also Remember Trump had to add/recall/reoffer allot of Government workers during December also so things would function.
Trump also kicked civilians workers off bases for a bit which huhhh has had to be (Reinstated) cause work has stalled as they had no future plans......
There are so many wild incidents happening at once the Payroll zone is being flooded with work and fired/rehired employees.
Would mass deportations and arrests of supposed illegals who canât be employed on paper lead to increased employment?
Was there mass firings for the people who record these stats when trump got into office? I remember they posted numbers he didnât like, then he had a tantrum.
So forgive the layman question, but if the numbers aren't accurate, as in they are always revised, why even report them this early? Who would want to base a decision off bad numbers?
I suspect this wonât get much engagement. Positive news about the US is frowned upon. It also doesnât have you know who in the title.
This sub is filled with miserable liberals, upset Europeans, Canadians and Chyna. Theyâre shouting doom, gloom, sadness and misery from the rooftops all to win an election.
If you asked Reddit about their life outside of politics theyâre making 350k and living in a 850k house. If you asked Reddit anything with a hint of political commentary, the economy has never been worse even though prime age workers unemployment rate is below 4%.
If youâre a young person, you should be upset. If youâre a 40 year old mentally ill liberal whining about Trump everyday, seek help.
BLS budget cut 20% early '25, this forced the imputations from 10% to 30%, the various survey answers has decreased from ~74% to ~57%, the staff reduction forced a pullback on collection from two cities and halted completely on Buffalo. They have also tweaked the Birth Death model since it was out of date.
Add in post-pandemic job market stress and the chaotic 2025 with firing, rehiring, deportations and government shutdowns it's nothing odd that the quality of data has suffered greatly. Just recently JPow and another member of the Fed came out and stated that the data quality was now unreliable.
Dig into the individual inflation figures and wage growths and suddenly the reason behind so many are struggling and not believing in a growing economy.
Official narratives never tell a complete picture from any administration in any government. Not always on purpose, but simply because the issues are to complex to easily breakdown in a statement.
It shouldn't get much engagement because it's not reliable news. Over and over these numbers were revised down over the last year, with the early numbers being celebrated and the revisions ignored, despite them painting a bleak picture
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 130,000 job growth in January, exceeding the Dow Jones economistsâ prediction of 55,000. The unemployment rate was 4.3%, lower than the Dow Jones prediction of 4.4%.
Oh shut up with this bow to the donkey routine. He's hasn't given us factual numbers on the economy and jobs since day one...you would have to be a fool to believe this crap. And unfortunately his lies are going to come back to kick us in ass..oh and hope you enjoyed paying and extra $1000 for stuff last year because of tariffs, the same ones killing our little farmers and ranchers...and after he already screwed them with beef and soybeans.
The economy is a lot stronger than the narrative being pushed by Dems and the media. Now we have this jobs number with the wage growth and lower unemployment rate. The GDP came in over 4% is projected to be over 5% next release. Inflation rate low and near Fed target. Gas prices down. Home mortgages and car loans down. Even stocks near all time highs.
I get it. Itâs an election year and the side out of power is going to go all in on nonsense trying to brainwash people on things that just arenât so.
You're making shit up like him spare me I can read. I get it it's an election year and you are all terrified that you're already getting your asses handed to you in areas Trump won. So your lies make sense. But it doesn't make them facts. And Trump AGAIN hasn't given us legit numbers since the start. I'll bet you money those job numbers will be quietly revised ..in other words they are just propaganda by the party of pedophiles.
And let's just ignore that he's added trillion to the national debt and the fact that the trade deficit has grown. The moron even called his own trade agreement crap because he forgot he did it the first time around .The guys a moronic putz and all your lies won't change the facts.
When did Republicans start ..oh that's right..they haven't. By the way how's the whole measles thing going on advise from Capt. Brainworm....he's even got Dr Oz begging people to take it lol. Sad pathetic joke.
xxxlovelit | 8 hours ago
So can someone explain to me how one month in January of non-farm payrolls can equal the revised number for all of 2025 + 50,000 jobs??
How is this number accurate???
kintotal | 7 hours ago
It isn't. ADP reported 22K. I'm sure whoever reported it can run through the gymnastics they used to calculate it but it doesn't reflect the reality the metric is designed for.
MatthewSWFL229 | 3 hours ago
They fired all the people who gave accurate numbers now they're just Trump lackies who will get fired for being the messenger of bad news. It's a complete shill.
usernamerevoked | 6 hours ago
Annual bonus month maybe for a lot of companies
HeavySigh14 | 4 hours ago
đ¤Ľ
teacher_59 | 7 hours ago
Fewer illegals taking farm jobs from Americans now?
hentai_gifmodarefg | 6 hours ago
this is fucking hilarious because if you click the link, the very first sentence reads:
Nonfarm payrolls increased by 130,000 for January, above the Dow Jones consensus estimate for 55,000.
like I get it, you gotta blame illegals for why your life is so shit, but come on
surfinglurker | 7 hours ago
They revised down numbers in 2025 by hundreds of thousands of jobs (there have already been multiple downward revisions, they did it again). This new report will almost certainly get corrected
ishtar_the_move | 8 hours ago
Along with a huge revision: "The U.S. labor market added only 181,000 jobs in 2025, revisions released Wednesday show. Previously, initial data showed that the U.S. economy added 584,000 jobs. But more granular state data available on a lag led to steep revisions."
What is the chance this 130,000 will be revisioned down to a tiny fraction in a couple of months?
Edit: Final revision for 04/24 - 03/25 revised down to 898,000. Great job voting out that Biden economy y'all.
Mr_1990s | 8 hours ago
How this isnât the primary headline I donât understand. It makes the January number look like disinformation.
MC_Fap_Commander | 7 hours ago
The media is complicit. The "good news" from the Administration is always spammed with glossy headlines. The revisions are typically given a blip, at best. That it happens with every report is deeply suspect.
WinterWontStopComing | 7 hours ago
Itâs like the news outlets are all owned by a half dozen oligarchs or something
MC_Fap_Commander | 7 hours ago
But they do VeryConcerned! reports when someone in the Administration says something deeply racist. THEY'RE LEFT LEANING (lol)!
Either-Return-8141 | 6 hours ago
Its about half and half. Outrage sells though, and keeps us talking about culture wars instead of chopping up the families of the wealthy.
MC_Fap_Commander | 4 hours ago
"Please look left and right... you absolutely shouldn't be looking up."
WowIfOnly | 3 hours ago
"Ya know, some people who we won't name and definitely aren't us might maybe think maybe proudly posting a video depicting a former African American 'President' (WITH THE MIDDLE NAME HUSSEIN MIND YOU) and his 'wife' as Monkeys and then proudly doubling down on it as not a mistake and saying actually it's true migggghttttt maybe maybe sound a little... insensitive? BUT WE AREN'T SAYING THAT EXACTLY! We're just reporting that maybe the possibly funny and clever cool thing that Kin-I MEAN PRESIDENT Trump posted might get taken the wrong way and lead to someone wanting to SLAM the act verbally - but those people might also be absolute traitors to the country because that's a very strong accusation toward the leader of the country who regularly gets accused of doing things like that (or so we've maybe heard sometimes stated by people who may be wrong). But let's pivot over to what that stupid fucking bitch AOC says about it - God she is a dumbass, right?" - Mainstream Media, basically
austinwiltshire | 5 hours ago
This is outlandish and a downright lie. There's not a half dozen of them! Four at most.
braiam | 6 hours ago
And in this sub we like to promote that narrative. Like, come on guys, be more critical of the info you receive.
th8chsea | 6 hours ago
130k is still below that magic number we always are told is the minimum for a healthy economy to keep up with population growth, etc, of 150k.
Any time Biden or Obama were below 150k new jobs a month it was reported as a dire emergency and sign of their incompetence.
Today we get "well it was better than we thought it would be!" when it makes Trump look good.
$1,000 says these numbers are revised down by half in the coming months and not a single news outlet covers it.
nopointers | 5 hours ago
Iâll take that bet. My bet is youâre right about the downward revision, but AP and Reuters will at least run stories about it. Probably WSJ too, paywalled.
Ghostrider556 | 4 hours ago
I mean every month Trump has been in office has now come with a negative revision on the job report numbers so Im not betting against your assessment lol
monkypanda34 | 5 hours ago
With the immigration stuff going on we're not in population growth anymore, so it takes less jobs. But yeah, the economy is in a bad place and the numbers are probably cooked.
bitchingdownthedrain | 6 hours ago
Deeply suspectâŚâŚand also given as the explicit reason for firing the last BLS director
Weird itâs still happening though right
Worshipme988 | 4 hours ago
Scream headlines, whisper retractions.
Trumps MO since 80s. Its effective for stupid people, that dont want clarity, and dont consider asking any follow up questions.
Alexwonder999 | 4 hours ago
I never thought I'd live in an age where "Mc Fap Commander" had better news analysis than the MSM, but here we are.
PM_Me_Your_Clones | 4 hours ago
Man, I can just feel my chocolate ration going up to 20g.
flatfisher | 6 hours ago
This was already happening with the previous administration too.
shamalamanan | 8 hours ago
100%. This admin skews everything away from the truth.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 7 hours ago
The data from the BLS was reported in the same way it always is, tbh I think the bigger problem here is people on reddit get their news from CNBC rather than from reading the actual reports. They'd have seen this if they did that.
I-Way_Vagabond | 6 hours ago
Agree with everything you said, u/RIP_Soulja_Slim, but the bigger issue is why does the BLS swing and miss so badly.
The same exact thing happened during the Biden Administration. The job numbers were frequently revised downward by similar magnitudes.
I don't care who is in office. How is an administration supposed to make competent policy decisions when the data you are relying on has such a huge margin of error?
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 6 hours ago
> Agree with everything you said, u/RIP_Soulja_Slim, but the bigger issue is why does the BLS swing and miss so badly.
For what it's worth, they don't. They're extremely accurate, but people don't really understand the jobs reports or statistics.
In stats, if you need to measure something like a change from period 1 to period 2 you can't just go out and collect a lot of data about that change. You need a reference start and end point.
So what the BLS does every month isn't asking what jobs are added/lost. They're asking what the total amount of employment is in month 1, then doing it again in month 2, then applying the change (with some statistical tweaks).
So your margin of error isn't "well it was 130k now it's 30k", the margin is "total employment was first measured at 165,630,000 and is now measured at 165,530,000" The margins of error here are generally close to 0.1% or less, but do have some larger outliers.
Here's also a good explainer of methodology and why revisions happen: https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2025/bls-investigation-challenges-yes-rigged-data-no
Also, it should be noted that on a relative basis, as in relative to the labor force, the margins of error we're seeing today are lower than any point in the BLS' history. They're just a lot more politicized now, and unfortunately a lot of redditors are gobbling up white house rhetoric without knowing it.
shamalamanan | 6 hours ago
My issue is he fired McEntarfer because he didnât like the numbers reported. How are the markets to trust anything from them?
Ok_Beautiful_5881 | 7 hours ago
And ⌠markets are up today based on the âstrongâ jobs report. When will it all collapse?
Human-Beautiful608 | 7 hours ago
You can almost see it curving back down in real time as institutions and individuals process through the data to realize that the revisions from last year also mean the current numbers are at least as bogus and will be revised down in a few months as real data rolls in from the state level where they can't manipulate it.
MC_Fap_Commander | 7 hours ago
There have been periods in history when the stock market gains despite obscured weak fundamentals. Those periods always have a pretty unfortunate end.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 7 hours ago
discount rates moving down, stocks go up. It's just math, not always good or bad.
MisinformedGenius | 7 hours ago
As of 35 minutes after your post they're down about half a point, the NASDAQ even more. I guess now we know the reading speed of Wall Street.
303uru | 7 hours ago
Ha, not for long, the headline drove some quick reaction, the closer review is now causing a pullback.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 5 hours ago
I've been saying this in this sub for some time, and am still vindicated by reality but many here will not want to hear it: if you are banking on some sort of collapse, crash, or drastic shift in economic/financial conditions as a sort of political referendum, you are going to be disappointed.
It's not that the President isn't doing detrimental things, it's that the economy and markets do not respond in the way so many of y'all seem to think they do.
Jest_out_for_a_Rip | 7 hours ago
Markets are down, because a strong labor market reduces the odds of an interest rate cut. A weak jobs report, but not a collapse, would have been better for the stock market.
Spike2000_ | 7 hours ago
Because MSM works for Republicans.
https://www.headlinefix.net/fixes/8633/only-181000-jobs-created-in-2025-after-new-revisions-trump-hopes-to-deflect-with-unreliable-2026-jo
Brainrants | 7 hours ago
"like" is doing some heavy lifting in that sentence.
YouWereBrained | 6 hours ago
Because it is. All somebody on CNBC has to do is say âthat number seems fine, but can we please talk about the revision to 2025âs numbers?â.
They wonât do that, though.
Ghostrider556 | 6 hours ago
I might be wrong but just a few days ago they were reporting how it was the most layoffs in January since 2009. Wonder if these numbers will be revised too
Most_Luck4971 | 6 hours ago
Nytimes has a full front page story about it right now
Drmoeron2 | 5 hours ago
Disinformation and Psyop are two words this administration will never say
nerowasframed | 2 hours ago
It's because a Republican is in the White House
HistoricalSuspect580 | 2 hours ago
Disinformation is the only kind of information we have atp
vnzjunk | 7 hours ago
What, publish the truth and get run out of biz by trump and his good squads?
ErictheAgnostic | 7 hours ago
Billionaire owned media
Ksan_of_Tongass | 7 hours ago
If it walks like propaganda, and quacks like propaganda, then its a duck.
wowmomcooldad | 6 hours ago
Shareholders shareholders shareholders
helluvastorm | 6 hours ago
Thatâs how it works now. Disinformation!
Useful_Support_4137 | 5 hours ago
Welcome to the age of disinformation. Y'all voted for this.
Brutact | 7 hours ago
Have you heard of this thing called the news?
bejammin075 | 8 hours ago
Hold on, so in 2025 we had a year that averaged 15,000 jobs per month?
ballmermurland | 7 hours ago
Yep, but somehow the UE rate stayed steady at 4.3%
Optimal-Archer3973 | 7 hours ago
ROFLOL, and that was despite adding several hundred thousand more workers as well.
DJanomaly | 7 hours ago
Itâs possible that we have a large amount of boomers retiring at the moment. But I feel for that to be true we would need to data on it.
Optimal-Archer3973 | 7 hours ago
that would be worse as SS costs would increase significantly. They used to have expected retirement numbers on their site but it is probably gone now.
Canadian_Border_Czar | 6 hours ago
Scuse me... the correct abbreviation is "ROFLMAO"
Im going to need to see your asl to verify membership
Optimal-Archer3973 | 5 hours ago
After watching this shit for a year it is no longer as funny, now it is also just sad. We expect some corruption but it is still supposed to be COMPETENT corruption.
Even the FED members stated they simply can no longer use trumps data as anything other than a joke among themselves.
Canadian_Border_Czar | 5 hours ago
Im thinking you meant to respond to someone else.
Optimal-Archer3973 | 4 hours ago
No, my ass was still firmly attached while laughing at the report. The sheer incompetence of the numbers does not allow me to laugh as hard as it really should generate. It is just that the lie should be at least believable you know, this is straight out of a fantasy novel and not even a good one.
MC_Fap_Commander | 7 hours ago
SPOILER: The real unemployment rate is not 4.3%.
RYouNotEntertained | 6 hours ago
What is it, and how do you know?
soggy-hotdog-vendor | 6 hours ago
Job growth vs elegible worker population growth for the year is not 1:1 therefor either this or the previous unemployment rate is not "real."
RYouNotEntertained | 6 hours ago
Yeah, and the rate is up YoY.
MC_Fap_Commander | 4 hours ago
I'll wait until the revised number comes out. Based on precedent from this Administration, the real number will be lower (potentially a lot lower). There are also independent indicators that are worth taking a look at for context.
If all of those validate these job market growth numbers in a stable/healthy economy, great. There's very little reason to assume this based on today's report, however.
RYouNotEntertained | 2 hours ago
Are you talking about the job numbers? Because thatâs a different thing than the unemployment rate.
So to ask again: what is the actual rate, and how do you know?
Hawful | 5 hours ago
There is a gap between unemployment and 'labor participation'. Basically if you haven't actively looked for a job in the past month you don't count as 'unemployed' anymore because they no longer consider you a part of the workforce.
Additionally, this number does not capture the much larger 'under-employed' group. If you have done ANY paid work recently you count as 'employed' even if that's just a single doordash order you are no longer 'unemployed'.
RYouNotEntertained | 5 hours ago
>Â Basically if you haven't actively looked for a job in the past month you don't count as 'unemployed' anymore because they no longer consider you a part of the workforce.
This has always been the case. We donât want to count, say, stay-at-home moms or retirees or students as unemployed. And anyway, we track the very thing youâre talking about, and the labor force participation rate looks fine especially in the prime working age demo. For a low LFPR to be masking a high unemployment rate, weâd have to actually have a low LFPRâso this hypothesis doesnât make sense.
>Â Additionally, this number does not capture the much larger 'under-employed' group
Again, the U3 unemployment rate has never captured underemployment, so itâs still useful to compare over time. But also, we do track underemployment with the U6 rate⌠which is also low.
alanthar | an hour ago
man, y'all never truly recovered from 08, eh?
RYouNotEntertained | an hour ago
What do you mean? All these graphs show massive recoveries from â08.
alanthar | an hour ago
Not the Labor Force Participation Rate.
Edit sorry for not being clear on what I meant.
enoerew | 5 hours ago
I believe many say the U6 unemployment rate is more all-encompassing. Looks like that's around 8% now.
RYouNotEntertained | 5 hours ago
Ok, but in that case you have to compare the U6 rate now with the U6 rate in the past, not the U6 rate now with the U3 rate in the past.
carlos_the_dwarf_ | 4 hours ago
Which is a decent rate for u6, btw.
helluvastorm | 6 hours ago
Tis a mystery! Iâve been trying to reconcile the unemployment number with reality for months. Apparently all the people getting laid off are either drivers for uber DoorDash instacart or spark. Or the numbers are absolutely lies
reasonably_plausible | 4 hours ago
>Apparently all the people getting laid off
Layoffs have been heavily publicized, but they are still pretty low historically.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTSLDL
The lack of new jobs is the much bigger issue.
>Or the numbers are absolutely lies
Or... People who are fired or new workers unable to find work are a part of the ~500,000 person increase in the unemployment rate we've seen over the past year... Just because overall unemployment is still pretty low, doesn't mean it hasn't been increasing.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNEMPLOY
Briflyguy | 7 hours ago
The working age population grew by 65,000 per month, meaning there were no jobs for 3 out of 4 people entering the workforce.
SmurfStig | 7 hours ago
My young adult college kid is having a hell of a time trying to find a part time job. Applies everywhere and no calls. He was supposed to be on a CoOp rotation for school but over half his class couldnât find one. Typically itâs around 95% of students find one. What company wouldnât want cheap college interns? Turns out when you cut all the funding for research and upend manufacturing with tariffs, companies donât even want cheap labor.
energeticquasar | 7 hours ago
It's more than not wanting cheap labor, it's the competition. At my job, we posted for a position that only pays $26/hr (I live in a HCOL area). We received over 100 applications. People with undergrad and graduate degrees were applying and it only required a High School diploma and 3 years experience.
Why would a company hire college student or recent graduate when they have people with years, if not decades of experience applying for the same job at the same rate? The job market is severely broken.
DoubleJumps | 5 hours ago
I've seen job listings recently that demand decades of experience but pay as if they are for people who are maybe only a couple years into the field.
Mrevilman | 8 hours ago
Make the big initial splash, tout huge numbers, and then revise many months after people have forgotten about it.
aurelorba | 8 hours ago
Without considering political interference, there is a problem with the data collection not accurately reflecting reality due to a large company bias. Small businesses under respond and respond late. They are also the first to feel the effects of a slowing economy and least able to absorb tariff and other political chaos inflicted.
Having said that, the biggest recent monthly revision was -133k last June. That would wipe Jan payrolls out completely. Not saying that will happen but it is precedented.
I'm more interested in the cause of the variances:
Possibilities.
Overestimation of Small Business Growth: Analysts believe the models overestimated hiring by smaller firms during the 2024â2025 period.
Delayed Recognition of Economic Slowdown: The initial, high-frequency data was "too generous" in the second half of 2024 and early 2025, failing to recognize the slowdown in job growth as quickly as the comprehensive QCEW data did.
Re-calculation of Seasonal Factors: The BLS recalculates seasonal adjustment factors for months like May and June to account for shifting hiring patterns, which can lead to large, one-time downward adjustments.
Incorrectly Estimated "Break-even" Rate: Because of high immigration in 2023-2024, the number of jobs needed to keep the unemployment rate from rising (the "break-even" point) was initially misunderstood, making the labor market appear stronger than it was.
Phyrexian_Overlord | 7 hours ago
They fired the people who kept and reported the numbers and installed yes men dude
bailtail | 7 hours ago
This doesnât have to be a one or the other thing.
--TheCity-- | 6 hours ago
Except that it obviously is. All this "incorrectly estimated" talk is nonsense. Anyone who thinks they are doing their best to get real numbers and not just ~~borrowing~~ stealing job numbers from 25 to add on to 26 should go check a show I watched as a child "Lost In Space".
BangBangMeatMachine | 5 hours ago
The reasons for discrepancy and revision are a totally valid thing to be interested in, but you may be missing the point of the comment you're replying to. The issue is not that the numbers were revised. The issue is that at the same time we learned about a positive headline-number for January, we also learned that 2025 dramatically underperformed what had previously been reported. When it comes to assessing the current state of the economy, the latter fact is much more significant than the former and is worth calling attention to. Job growth dropping by a factor of 5 from 2024 to 2025 has major implications for the economy.
gmb92 | 7 hours ago
All of the months last year were revised down, about 55,000 on average. Media reporting these "better than expected" headlines fails to note that these initial estimates are consistently too rosy.
https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm
MoonBatsRule | 6 hours ago
My city has a mayor who shows similar characteristics to Trump. One thing that I noticed he has done - over his almost 20-year reign - is that he announces projects left and right. 90% of them never get done - but people believe that he is effective because he is always announcing more and more things.
People are generally idiots.
Optimal-Archer3973 | 7 hours ago
100% There is absolutely no objective way to reach this number period. None. This is not even some kind of guess, this is a blatant lie.
lindydanny | 2 hours ago
Yeah, all this seems way more rosy compared to the way that the world seems right now. I just sat through my town's budget review for mid physical year and though it isn't drastic, sales tax revenue is down 3% from last year... I can't imagine that we have more jobs with less overall revenue.
Lighthouse_seek | 6 hours ago
No one with a brain is going to believe that the 130k number stays. You're telling me Jan of 2026 alone added 72% of all jobs in 2025?
harbison215 | 7 hours ago
We added more jobs in January than we did in all of 2025? Makes sense
Expert-Longjumping | 7 hours ago
Ice ice baby
Zebra971 | 6 hours ago
That is the number people should be looking at, the 12 month average, and then break the first and second month averages and trend. Monthly data is meaningless.
Low_Alps1942 | 5 hours ago
There were two giant revision under joe biden as well, -800k in 2023 and -500k in 2024. Post Covid Jobs data is spotty at best and has been the norm the last three years.
turb0_encapsulator | 5 hours ago
exactly. it's increasingly clear that these numbers are complete bullshit. we're supposed to believe that January added nearly as many jobs as all of 2025.
JustHanginInThere | 4 hours ago
Yeah, this was to be expected since this administration openly stated 8 or 9 months ago they'd be changing how the numbers (all metrics on the economy) are reported. Just like grading on a curve, or omitting certain... unsavory details.
RandomMiddleName | 4 hours ago
I donât see your quote in the article linked. And as for your edit, the article says it was âlowered BY a total of 898,000â, which implies Bidenâs numbers were heavily inflated.
ishtar_the_move | 4 hours ago
WSJ: "The Labor Departmentâs Bureau of Labor Statistics on Wednesday said that the U.S. added just 1.5 million jobs in 2024, well below the previously estimated 2 million. In 2025, it said the labor market added only 181,000 jobs, versus the previously estimated 584,000."
RandomMiddleName | an hour ago
You gave a new unlinked quote to support the previous unlinked quote. And the 2024 numbers donât align with your first comment. Maybe because the date range differs. But the lack of consistency and support makes validating your comment harder. With so much misinformation surrounding this topic, especially given your comment being the top one on this thread, if you are going to give âfactsâ you should provide more support.
ishtar_the_move | an hour ago
I already said WSJ. How difficult is that really: https://www.wsj.com/economy/jobs/job-growth-last-year-was-far-worse-than-we-thought-heres-why-4308db41
Literally the first thing that pops up if you google "2024 job creation US".
It is reported everywhere: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/january-jobs-revisions-trump-rcna258398
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/non-farm-payrolls
You can of course just go see it directly from the source: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
Unusual-Penalty-7507 | 3 hours ago
The Biden administration adjusted jobs numbers downward every quarter for his entire presidency. Your point?
jcooli09 | 2 hours ago
>What is the chance this 130,000 will be revisioned down to a tiny fraction in a couple of months?
It's almost certain to.
It won't happen if trump learns that these numbers get revised, though.
AwkwardTickler | an hour ago
"Don't believe your eyes and ears" will be tested on the educated. I don't think it's going to work
brendamn | 7 hours ago
Markets noticed by the looks right now
--TheCity-- | 7 hours ago
584,000-130,000=454,000 jobs they can just add on randomly to make the job market look better in the coming months. Desperately pulling numbers from anywhere now that someone has finally claimed it is his economy now not the other guy he blamed for the past year. It's a real shit show for sure and we have a large percentage of voters who believe all the bs and cheer it on and will vote for more. LOeffingL.
akidinrainbows | 3 hours ago
I'm not the conspiratorial type, but this administration has politicized everything at this point, lied to the public about things that were captured on video, as plain as day. Given that the jobs report is strongly associated with the perceived success of the administration, it is hard to believe there wouldn't be strong pressures to bias the numbers in a favorable light. This behavior is the hallmark of his brand.
MyTnotE | 7 hours ago
To be more accurate, that revision was for the 12 months ending March 2025 - so mostly in the Biden years. Apparently that was âin line with expectationsâ so it wasnât headline worthy. Itâs also noteworthy that government jobs shrank, which is actually fairly good news if youâre a deficit hawk.
MisinformedGenius | 7 hours ago
No, the revisions are benchmarked to March 2025, but the revisions are carried forward to the most recent jobs report (and actually backwards a long way too). From the jobs report:
>In accordance with annual practice, the establishment survey data released today have been benchmarked to reflect comprehensive counts of payroll jobs for March 2025. These counts are derived principally from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), which counts jobs covered by the Unemployment Insurance (UI) tax system. The benchmark process results in revisions to not seasonally adjusted data from April 2024 forward. Seasonally adjusted data from January 2021 forward are subject to revision. In addition, data for some series prior to 2021, both seasonally adjusted and unadjusted, incorporate other revisions.
MyTnotE | 7 hours ago
As has been pointed out we are talking about two separate things. From the articleâŚ
âThe BLS also released final benchmark revisions for the year prior to March 2025. Those numbers saw the initial counts revised lower by a total 898,000, about in line with expectations.â
Thatâs clearly talking about mostly 2024 numbers.
The point I was making is that this downward revision wasnât the âlead headline.â Because it was mostly in line with expectations.
MisinformedGenius | 6 hours ago
We're not talking about two different things - the article is simply wrong. Parsing details from financial articles whipped out in an hour or so is a mug's game - they get small things wrong all the time. As the actual job report says: "The benchmark process results in revisions to not seasonally adjusted data from April 2024 forward."
They provide a table in said jobs report showing the changes for every month in 2025 due to these revisions, it's at the very bottom of the summary page. I'd copy/paste it but it doesn't format well.
MyTnotE | 6 hours ago
The point is the same. In line with expectations. Thatâs why itâs not headline worthy, and not moving the market.
ishtar_the_move | 7 hours ago
I don't think that's correct. From CNBC
> "In addition to the monthly numbers, the BLS released final benchmark revisions for the period of April 2024 to March 2025. Those numbers saw the initial counts revised lower by a total 898,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis. That was a bit lower than the 911,000 figure for the initial estimate last September but around Wall Street expectations."
Sounds to me there are two set of revisions with overlapping time frame.
MisinformedGenius | 6 hours ago
CNBC is simply wrong here. If you look at the jobs report summary page, at the bottom, you'll see the following text, "The benchmark process results in revisions to not seasonally adjusted data from April 2024 forward", along with a table showing the revisions due to the benchmarking for every month in 2025.
Vigorato | 6 hours ago
There were revisions for the April -Dec 25 period, separate revisions for Apr 24 - March 25, then overlaying both of these were changes to seasonal adjustments running back to 2021. Finally, there was a new methodology used in January for the first time that should eliminate some of the overestimating we normally see. In short, itâs a mess.
For those crying about the administration and these numbers, itâs a long-standing BLS problem that pre-dates Trumpâs second term and has nothing to do with politics. If you want to be serious about economics, leave your biases at the door
DarkElation | 2 hours ago
WutâŚBidenâs revisions were four times this much in 2024.
ishtar_the_move | 2 hours ago
WSJ: "The Labor Departmentâs Bureau of Labor Statistics on Wednesday said that the U.S. added just 1.5 million jobs in 2024, well below the previously estimated 2 million. In 2025, it said the labor market added only 181,000 jobs, versus the previously estimated 584,000."
Not sure where you get four times as much. 2024 also had more than eight times the job creation of 2025.
intothewoods76 | 6 hours ago
Didnât Bidenâs numbers always get revised too?
Are you trying to convince people the economy under Biden was somehow good?
Scrandon | 5 hours ago
Yea, it was good towards the end of his term, and it was monotonically improving for his entire term after being handed a steaming pile of trđ¤Ąmp
ishtar_the_move | 6 hours ago
I say 898,000 is greater than 181,000.
toedwy0716 | 9 hours ago
Read the report. Job gains are in three sectors, healthcare, construction and social assistance. Healthcare was led by a 50k increase in ambulatory services. No freaking clue how much longer healthcare is going to be able to power the numbers. As so much I can tell weâre not adding high paying jobs so much anymore.
SpaceyCoffee | 8 hours ago
As long as boomers keep aging and declining in health would be my guess
WarpedSt | 8 hours ago
Corporations have to capture all the boomer wealth before they could do the unthinkable and pass it down to other generations
the_TAOest | 6 hours ago
This is exactly correct. The boomer wealth will be consumed by corporations, not passed on to the next generations
BloodsVsCrips | 8 hours ago
Boomer spending is way more economically productive than inheritance.
Single-Paramedic2626 | 8 hours ago
Explain; why do you think boomer spend is better for economic productivity? Boomer spend is on things like healthcare which wouldnât create long term economic productivity. Keeping people alive for longer who donât contribute to the workforce seems like a drag on economic growth
Where inheritances would go to working age adults who could then do things like buy a house or start a business; instead those people are currently working the services jobsâŚ
Edited: original question was a bad one đ
SpaceyCoffee | 7 hours ago
Fake tits and sports cars is gen X, who are middle age. Boomers are largely 70+. They are spending on healthcare at an accelerating rate
ScannerBrightly | 7 hours ago
Gen X here. My healthcare spending went up a bunch this decade, and I'm sure I'm not the only one getting procedures done for the first time in their lives.
Conscious_Can3226 | 6 hours ago
My older Gen X inlaws and their friends are getting gutted. Knee replacements and surgeries among the active ones, breast, skin, and colon cancers are abound, both my sister in laws had immune system issues from their eating disorders in their teens and early 20s when liquor replaced food so they could be hot, a couple of their friends got osteoporosis younger than expected that they suspect was from a similar situation, the works.
Disastrous_Room_927 | 5 hours ago
I swear every time I hear from my parents (also older gen X), they're paying at least 5k for some kind of medical procedure.
Mr__O__ | an hour ago
Currently, the very best Aetna plan for recent retirees still has a $8k yearly deductibleâŚ
BloodsVsCrips | 7 hours ago
> why would it matter which generation is spending?
Inheritance isn't "spending." We're far better off with Boomers buying sports cars and fake tits rather than adding another 1mm to their kids' retirement accounts.
> Boomer spend is on things like healthcare which wouldnât create long term economic productivity.
It drives the largest middle-class labor pool in the economy.
Single-Paramedic2626 | 7 hours ago
Yeah you are hitting on my point. If our economy is being driven by sports cars, fake tits and having young people caring for old people while the rest of the world is focusing on science, technology and infrastructure; we are going to become like every great power before us, completely irrelevant on the world stage.
Home ownership for young people is at historic lows and people are having fewer kids (and at later ages), all because both are unaffordable; if we want to have a solid future we have to invest in the people who are going to make it
gravteck | 7 hours ago
I don't really understand the take from the commenter you're responding to. If a 35 year old couple inherits enough to buy a house, or are given one, then all that money they are saving for the house (that used to go in the landlords pocket) goes to new cars, home reno, home decorating, etc. It's a lifeline if financial freedom that frees up a valuable demographic to spend instead of save.
BloodsVsCrips | 7 hours ago
You're only viewing it from the position of the inheritor. The economy as a whole is much stronger when consumption flows into productive jobs/services.
gravteck | 5 hours ago
Um yes? I just explained how consumption flows. I've spent over 150k on tools, furniture, paint, contractors, appliances, etc. over the last 8 years when I bought a house with great bones from an elderly couple. The silent generation had tight wallets, they're not investing in their property with diversidied outlays to the degree 50 and unders might.
nucc4h | 5 hours ago
Yeah, and it's an idiotic short term gain at the expense of long term growth, as the poster above alludes to.
Instead of this money going to potential family growth and entrepreneurship capability, its being skimmed on its way down to minimal job growth.
Single-Paramedic2626 | 3 hours ago
Can you define âproductiveâ? Iâm wondering if thatâs our disconnect, having more hospital administrators due to increased senior spend will look good on a balance sheet and ultimately gdp, but what does it accomplish?
BloodsVsCrips | 7 hours ago
> If our economy is being driven by sports cars, fake tits and having young people caring for old people while the rest of the world is focusing on science, technology and infrastructure; we are going to become like every great power before us, completely irrelevant on the world stage.
Medical advancements on Boomers is science and tech. You think it's an accident US firms led the world on COVID vaccines?
Inheriting Boomer spending in a trust account is not as economically productive as spending it. You keep skipping over the most important engine in growth, labor. Boomer spending drives huge swaths of the economy into productive jobs.
> Home ownership for young people is at historic lows and people are having fewer kids (and at later ages), all because both are unaffordable; if we want to have a solid future we have to invest in the people who are going to make it
You're confusing ideological beliefs with facts. There's no evidence birth rates are going down worldwide because of affordability. If anything the exact opposite is true. People now have the means to get fulfillment out of things other than popping out 5 babies per household. Housing is wildly different today than in generations past. Boomers grew up buying crackerbox homes with minimal amenities and tons of unpaid labor. They had one family car that required constant maintenance.
dancinbanana | 7 hours ago
⌠do you think the people who inherit boomer wealth will just keep it in a trust instead of, idk, spend it? Thatâs a massive assumption you have to make for your argument to work, and I donât think itâs a solid one
BloodsVsCrips | 6 hours ago
The OP is complaining about Boomer medical spending like it's not powering the single most important labor field - healthcare. No assumption is necessary. If kids spend money instead of the parents that's still spending.
Single-Paramedic2626 | 3 hours ago
We arenât spending on research like we did pre COVID and other countries are increasing their spend as the US proves to be a bad trading partner. I donât think it was an accident we were able to do that; I do think itâs foolish to think we are capable of doing that after the hatchet we just took to the system you are praising.
I donât think I buy your trust fund perspective; the founders I know of have had seed funding from family (often in the form of trusts).
I didnât say birth rates worldwide are going down; the OP was about the US economy, and in the US birth rates are at historic lows (1.6); with housing affordability as the biggest reason why people are putting off having kids. The average first time homebuyers are now 38, thatâs pretty late for starting a family.
Who do you think is going to be driving the economy in 20 years if we donât invest in it today?
BloodsVsCrips | 3 hours ago
>I didnât say birth rates worldwide are going down; the OP was about the US economy, and in the US birth rates are at historic lows (1.6); with housing affordability as the biggest reason why people are putting off having kids.
Birth rates worldwide are going down, and far more rapidly than they have in the US. People say housing affordability is why they're putting off kids.
dust4ngel | 4 hours ago
> Boomer spending is way more economically productive than inheritance
absolutely - it's objectively true that boomers spend but their children do not. the main reason is that their children buy too many iPhones and avocado toast, while somehow not spending. this is why economics requires advanced degrees - it's very complicated.
Lemp_Triscuit11 | 8 hours ago
well.. there's a boiled-in tipping point there..
Negative-Squirrel81 | 8 hours ago
The aging population is going to be increasing for a long while. Only the very youngest Americans are likely to see those elderly numbers decrease in their lifetime.
Lemp_Triscuit11 | 8 hours ago
I don't think those coming soon (or, like, me) will be able to afford the same access to healthcare to prop those industries up. Boomers got their old age socialized and I don't expect many more of us will.
munky3000 | 8 hours ago
Time to buy all the assisted living facility stonks.
township_rebel | 8 hours ago
Itâs all private equity.
lungbutterunionboss | 8 hours ago
Can buy unrated CCRC Muni Bonds to capture some exposure, but caveat emptor* on those - Lots of junky credits. Edit: emperor to emptor
rvasko3 | 8 hours ago
What stocks?
Optimal-Archer3973 | 7 hours ago
Most will go out of business this year and next year actually due to the BBB medical billing changes.
Nursesharky | 6 hours ago
The problem with healthcare is that itâs not as responsive to demand as other sectors, and even more so with federal (Medicare) and state (Medicaid) plans. Reimbursements are not keeping pace with inflation nor costs (tariffs) at at some point Gross is going to completely stall out. Iâve been working in healthcare for 20 years and Iâm seeing the beginning administrative changes again to what we were going through in 2007 in 2008. My guess is that the healthcare job growth that weâre seeing now is compensatory for the inability to hire, pay for, and retain more qualified personnel (ie unable to pay for a pharmacist so you hire a tech instead and redistribute job responsibilities to better meet demand).
laxnut90 | 8 hours ago
The population is aging.
It would be strange to not see Healthcare job growth
We will probably see Healthcare job growth for the next 2-3 decades.
jokull1234 | 7 hours ago
Healthcare (82,000) and social assistance (42,000) being the main (only) source of jobs growth is not good.
The private sector being crowded out is not a healthy economy.
Boyhowdy107 | 6 hours ago
I keep waiting on all that manufacturing growth to hit.
The economy has been shot with a tranquilizer dart, but it's still resilient and doing what it will do. None of the things that are trending upwards are the areas that public policy in the last year has been trying to improve and frankly are not exactly the sturdiest foundation we should hope for.
Healthcare for example is foundational, but it's not hard to argue that we already spend way too much of our GDP on healthcare compared to everyone else. And that is the baseline, before we get into the demographic stress of the baby boomers needing more care. We are also building massive infrastructure around AI at the moment, which means jobs and money, but it also is putting a lot of eggs in one basket for a yet-unknown return. It could become the 21st century industry that drives US dominance for decades to come, or it could be so-so or burst. It would just feel better to be taking that bet if more of the meat and potatoes parts of the economy were looking healthier.
ReserveFormal3910 | 8 hours ago
We're spending 18% of GDP towards healthcare at least it's creating jobs. I don't how how sustainable that spending is or wise considering no other developed nation spends more than 12% while insuring their entire populace.
bittersterling | 8 hours ago
Iâm pretty sure most of that 18% isnât going towards job creation but đ¤ˇââď¸
PhysicsCentrism | 8 hours ago
https://www.pit.edu/news/healthcare-industry-statistics-facts-and-trends/
Healthcare employs a lot of people. And a lot of it is people making middle to upper middle class salaries.
The things that drive up costs can also provide jobs. For example, hospitals need people to submit claims properly for payment while insurance need people to review claims for approval / denial. Hence the denied claims that people complain about, are jobs provided for someone.
bittersterling | 8 hours ago
So itâs going towards bureaucratic nonsense not actual healthcare. Pretty close to the broken window fallacy.
lucabrasi999 | 8 hours ago
All those all of those bureaucratic jobs will be replaced by AI in a year.
Filing and processing claims is already mostly automated. Only a matter of time before the human intervention on the complex cases is no longer needed.
Appropriate-Bid8671 | 8 hours ago
I work for an insurance company that has been trying to make AI work for claims, policy changes, and surrenders processing for about 6 years now. The best the AI can do so far is *kind of* sort incoming "paperwork" and it doesn't do that very well.
lucabrasi999 | 7 hours ago
If you donât believe me, read this. https://shumer.dev/something-big-is-happening
I work in IT. Last year, AI was bad. Now it can write software code for an app in a few hours and test/debug that same code before giving it back to me.
DisappointedSpectre | 6 hours ago
I work in security for a FAANG company that constantly tries to push AI into anything and everything - AI is another force multiplier, not a direct replacement for labor.
Companies trying to fully replace workers, processes, and workflows with AI agents are going to largely fail to do so.
lucabrasi999 | 5 hours ago
I work in Big 4. It is replacing human labor right now, and it will only get worse.
AHSfav | 8 hours ago
None of what you just said is remotely close to true
lucabrasi999 | 7 hours ago
If you donât believe me, read this:
https://shumer.dev/something-big-is-happening
bittersterling | 8 hours ago
Press x to doubt.
Euphoric-Usual-5169 | 7 hours ago
"Â For example, hospitals need people to submit claims properly for payment while insurance need people to review claims for approval / denial. Hence the denied claims that people complain about, are jobs provided for someone."
Basically bullshit jobs. It would be more efficient to have them do actual medical work.
theStaircaseProject | 7 hours ago
I worked for a major insurer for many years. The vast majority of claim processors are already overseas contract hires living in Jamaica, the Philippines, or India. And even if those werenât the case, insurers have been plowing head-on into AI and RPA to reduce those headcount expenses even further. Iâm disconnected from the industry now but I canât see how claim processor would be a growing department in any way.
carlos_the_dwarf_ | 8 hours ago
Healthcare spending largely goes to wages, soâŚa lot of it?
bittersterling | 8 hours ago
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10986268/
~ $1 trillion goes to admin costs. Anywhere from 20-40% of total spending is on admin costs depending on the source. Most of it is definitely not labor.
BloodsVsCrips | 8 hours ago
That is just labor for admin. It's not fake money disconnected from wages.
> US health care administrative spendingâdefined as all activities in support of the delivery of care, including payment transactions, back-office corporate and operational functions, customer and patient services, and administrative clinical supportâis approximately $1 trillion annually.1
scolbert08 | 7 hours ago
Administration is literally labor.
bittersterling | 7 hours ago
Sure, but itâs wasted labor. Itâs not a productive use of our labor force. Itâs literally just sucking money out of the system.
carlos_the_dwarf_ | 8 hours ago
But we spend like $5-6 trillion on healthcare, right? From what I can tell, more than 50% of that is wages.
Just as a thought exercise, how could we possibly devote 18% of gdp to healthcare and not spend a lot of it on wages?
bittersterling | 8 hours ago
https://www.ama-assn.org/sites/ama-assn.org/files/2025-04/2023-where-money-goes-health-spending-chart-1170x780.png
Most is spent on âhospital careâ I linked an easy to understand chart of spending from the ama. CMS and other sources show roughly the same levels.
carlos_the_dwarf_ | 7 hours ago
Most of these types of care involve significant labor, no?
Chuckieshere | 6 hours ago
Its sustainible in the medium/long term. Probably 2ish decades of realatively steady jobs before the large cohort aging right now mostly passes away and then there will be some large scale changes
Euphoric-Usual-5169 | 7 hours ago
"at least it's creating jobs. "
It creates a lot of bullshit jobs in billing and administration.
GoodvsPerfect | 8 hours ago
>As has often been the case for the U.S. labor market, health care led job gains in December, adding 82,000 positions. Social assistance also rose, up 42,000 as the two categories were responsible for almost all the net job creation. Construction saw a gain of 33,000 following a year in which the sector saw little increase.
Right - and what's possible is that the economy is not creating entry level healthcare and construction jobs so much as refilling them after a year of intense ICE deportations. It'll be interesting to see if there's new development in construction, or just year-old projects being started up again.
ashark1983 | 6 hours ago
Those are really good points, I never considered. Does the report take that possibility into account?
GoodvsPerfect | 4 hours ago
no, it's a really short article with not much analysis. We'll have to wait a bit and see if someone more enterprising in data analysis can determine whether there really is job creation going on or if Trump's economy is just..."they took our jobs!"
But I suspect its more the latter than the former given the fed spigot's been vastly reduced. I don't think many people, even in agriculture and construction, realize how much of their industries are subsidized and/or the starting capital comes form the gov.
No-Compote-696 | 8 hours ago
construction shouldn't be a surprise either, AI Data centers are basically all of the construction happening right now. there is like nothing else going on but these monstrosities
Batetrick_Patman | 7 hours ago
And the âassisted livingâ/âmemory careâ or whatever going up every other block.
BangBangMeatMachine | 5 hours ago
Not true. A lot of the construction jobs are associated with Biden's IRA, which sent a ton of money into infrastructure investments over something like ten years.
CardiologistPrize712 | 5 hours ago
And what happens to our economy when the AI bubble bursts and all those half finished projects get stuck?
BaluZana | 8 hours ago
Yeah and the reason this is a problem is that most health care (more than 50% now) is paid for by the federal government. So we're looking at deficits getting even worse, interest on the debt getting worse, and a much reduced standard of living for the average American.
Ginmunger | 7 hours ago
You're not supposed to say that while theyre robbing us blind.
Thuggin95 | 7 hours ago
Young people are increasingly existing to take care of the expanding elderly population who get all the government benefits while paying almost none of the taxes - especially with seniorsâ property taxes being slashed
Artemis_Verite | 8 hours ago
They also changed the methodology in 2026 for how they gather the statistics. The birth-death model specifically (businesses opening are âbirthsâ, businesses closing are âdeathsâ). Not to mention the unemployment rate, at least in the state where I live, does not consider factors like what constitutes a livable wage, and considers part-time employment as employment. Donât trust any of it.
carlos_the_dwarf_ | 8 hours ago
Wow, if only professional economists had thought of measuring things likeâŚhow many per work part time or how much money people earn.
Too bad, I guess weâll never know.
OrangeJr36 | 8 hours ago
That's pretty much expected with an aging population and the AI build-out happening at the same time.
Older people require a lot more resources and care than younger citizens do, so as a society grays you'll see more workers shifting from more productive sectors to health and elder care. This is something we've been seeing for a long time now.
DimMak1 | 8 hours ago
Healthcare is state sponsored and fueled by endless debt that foreign countries STILL buy from us
The answer is that healthcare can power the numbers for infinity, like the Fed can print money for infinity
Raalf | 8 hours ago
The population average age is increasing - it's a safe bet this trend will continue until boomers are mostly gone in another 5+ years. You are correct with it not being high-wage/skill roles too; it's going to continue to be services requiring minimal certifications and training.
Prize_Compote_207 | 8 hours ago
Boomers mostly gone in 5 years?
The oldest boomers are 80 right now. The youngest are 60. And its the biggest age demographic in America.
You sure about that timeline?
Playingwithmyrod | 8 hours ago
Yea we got a solid two decades before we see the top of this trend
krombough | 7 hours ago
>And its the biggest age demographic in America.
This is no longer true. Millenials surpassed them around 2019.
DisappointedSpectre | 5 hours ago
An interesting metric here - Millennials outnumber Boomers, but Boomers have so much wealth tied to their generation, especially as compared to Millennials, that their impact on the economy is still much larger.
Thick-Cover8761 | 2 hours ago
Boomer here. Give many of us the quick and merciful exit necessary to avoid nursing home care, and we'll keep your inheritance intact.
flbnah | 49 minutes ago
Don't forget the boomer remover coefficient
Raalf | 6 hours ago
5+ means "at least more than 5 years"
So unless you plan on killing off everyone in 4 years, we are in agreement.
scott_majority | 8 hours ago
Damn....We are all dead in 5 years? Better start saying my goodbyes.
Raalf | 6 hours ago
You may not understand what "mostly" means.
scott_majority | 3 hours ago
Baby boomers are age 62-80...I seriously doubt "most" of us will die in 5 years...You will be dealing with us for another 30 years.
Raalf | 3 hours ago
Did I say 5? Or did I say 5+? Do you plan on killing off your fellow boomers in under 5 years or will it take at least five years as I indicated so clearly?
Your reading comprehension is significantly below what is acceptable.
toedwy0716 | 8 hours ago
Nvm
iruntoofar | 8 hours ago
Ambulatory services is just any outpatient service. Thatâs a huge section of healthcare.
toedwy0716 | 8 hours ago
Ah I stand corrected.
grimace24 | 8 hours ago
>Healthcare was led by a 50k increase in ambulatory services. No freaking clue how much longer healthcare is going to be able to power the numbers.
I work in the healthcare space and not much longer. I have seen many ambulatory locations consolidate. When they consolidate that means layoffs as they don't keep redundant staff. Due to this consolidation those 50K jobs could be temp staff that were hired to make the consolidation of two locations to one smoother.
Resident_Gas_9949 | 8 hours ago
So when democrats are in office they always subtract 120,000 for errors so we didnât really gain anything since ADP posted less than 50,000
GreenTrees797 | 7 hours ago
Healthcare is a necessity so it will continue. Fewer people will pay higher prices, some can afford it, some canât but the demand for healthcare personnel will still be there.
Disastrous_Coffee502 | 7 hours ago
There were a lot of freezes in hiring and reduction in new grad numbers for nurses after Big Beautiful Bill got passed. Usually hiring freezes are seasonal, but it pretty much lasted from Summer 2025 to present.
durrtyurr | 7 hours ago
Demographic factors will continue to drive growth in healthcare. Older people just need more services, and a lot of those services can't realistically be automated away. There is certainly room for a lot of back-end stuff to get automated or replaced by AI or whatever, but patient-facing is going to need actual people for the foreseeable future.
PomegranateSafe9699 | 7 hours ago
Canary is in the coal mine with healthcare. Itâs not that rosy within the industry. Watch your EOBs closelyâŚ
214ObstructedReverie | 4 hours ago
>No freaking clue how much longer healthcare is going to be able to power the numbers.
Months at best.
Once the cuts from the big beautiful scam bill hit, healthcare and education are going to fuck those employment numbers up. That abomination cuts $1T from Medicaid alone.
Long-Blood | 4 hours ago
Job gains in healthcare will always be high.
There is so much turnover in this sector. People always changing jobs for higher pay
Capital_Seaweed | 4 hours ago
I mean, are boomers even at retirement yet? Healthcare will BECOME the whole economy lol
carlos_the_dwarf_ | 8 hours ago
Anytime thereâs good news, the first comment is someone telling me why it doesnât count.
piperonyl | 8 hours ago
Well i mean just yesterday the federal reserve came out and said the jobs numbers the administration are publishing are wrong.
So, theres that.
TheGunfighter7 | 9 hours ago
Why does this seem to tell such a completely different story compared to this other article?
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/05/layoff-and-hiring-announcements-hit-their-worst-january-levels-since-2009-challenger-says.html
Slight-Platypus2877 | 9 hours ago
The Challenger number CNBC was referring to was the Y/Y number meaning...jobs cuts rose 117.8% from January 2025 - January 2026. This was the highest Y/Y print since 2009. Most headlines are just noise trying to invoke emotional trading.
James161324 | 8 hours ago
They are just announced, becuase company A announced layoffs in Jan, it doesn't mean all the layoffs happened in that month.
For example, HP announced 6,000 layoffs in Nov, so Challenger would have reported that in November. But those layoffs aren't scheduled to be finished until end of FY 2028.
We are also seeing that quite a few of the layoffs are targeting highly paid people who are late in their careers. Many may be getting large severance packages, while others may just be deciding to retire early.
The other thing to note, 106k across an employment base of 163 million in the US, is a rounding error.
The final note is that the job data doesn't reflect new hires due to retirements. Which roughly is running around 300k a month.
Solonotix | 8 hours ago
>Why does this seem to tell such a completely different story compared to this other article?
Headlines can really change your opinion on the news. That's why it's so important to get your news from a trustworthy source. Thank you to garble garble for sponsoring this comment. Use the code in the description below to get garble garble percent off your monthly subscription.
/end-joke
Sorry, I apparently watch too many videos on the Internet, and they all seem to be sponsored by a certain news aggregator site. Your comment read like the segue into one such ad spot.
therealmrbob | 9 hours ago
Unemployment and layoffs donât really align ever. Plus most of the big layoffs from big companies include severance, canât collect unemployment until the severance is done.
harpers25 | 8 hours ago
The unemployment rate isn't based on whether you can collect unemployment though.
therealmrbob | 8 hours ago
Itâs based on if you file for it, not going to file for unemployment if you canât collect benefits.
carlos_the_dwarf_ | 8 hours ago
No itâs not. I see you digging in down below, and you are incorrect. Unemployment rate isnât informed by UI at all.
BloodsVsCrips | 7 hours ago
> Itâs based on if you file for it
It is explicitly not connected to filings. BLS goes out of their way to disconnect the two for obvious reasons.
Boondocks_Paints | 8 hours ago
No it is not, unemployment for the BLS is a person who is currently not working who is seeking work.
Unemployment insurance doesn't go to people who quit, but surely we should count them as unemployed, right?
personman_76 | 8 hours ago
If you're unemployed more than a few weeks you're removed from the unemployment list and no longer counted for the total unemployment number
carlos_the_dwarf_ | 8 hours ago
Omg how many internet myths am I going to see in the ECONOMICS SUB???
This is not true. Please, Iâm begging you, stop repeating it.
LennyKravitzScarf | 8 hours ago
This is a politics sub.
carlos_the_dwarf_ | 7 hours ago
I suppose itâs too much to ask still for people to not fabricate things?
therealmrbob | 6 hours ago
BLS national data is literally just a survey of 60,000 households.
State data includes unemployment benefits.
GaiusGraccusEnjoyer | 8 hours ago
This is not true, as long as you are still looking for work you are counted
harpers25 | 8 hours ago
False.
fastliketree9000 | 8 hours ago
What is the number of weeks?
therealmrbob | 8 hours ago
Itâs both, but the surveys bls does are only part of the data. It also includes who applied for benefits.
harpers25 | 8 hours ago
Why does the BLS website FAQ on unemployment insurance say the exact opposite?
https://www.bls.gov/cps/faq.htm#Ques9
harpers25 | 8 hours ago
It's really not though.
hybridaaroncarroll | 8 hours ago
That's not true. In general most US states allow for collecting unemployment benefits while severance is paid out. It's not reported as gross earnings, at least not in the state that I'm in.
csguydn | 8 hours ago
Not in TN. I received a 2 week severance when I was laid off. Despite filing a UE claim on the first day, I wasn't eligible for any type of unemployment until after the severance period.
hybridaaroncarroll | 8 hours ago
Yeah, that checks out. Red states usually don't miss a chance to screw people by saving a few bucks.
csguydn | 7 hours ago
Here's a better one.
I was earning over 200k a year at my job. I got the "maximum" unemployment benefit. It was $325 a week. It lasts an entirety of 12 weeks total in a 365 day window (not calendar year).
How they expect anyone, no matter what your economic level, to survive on that is insane.
big_orange_ball | 6 hours ago
When I was laid off years ago I had to sign a contract that I could not file for unemployment if I took the severance. I also was required to notify them if I got a job and the severance would end. It was also to be paid along with the normal paycheck schedule instead of a lump sum.
Justthetip74 | 7 hours ago
You dont get it in WA state either
TheGunfighter7 | 9 hours ago
Interesting thank you
handsoapdispenser | 8 hours ago
Layoff and hiring announcements heavily skew towards corporations and most people work for small and medium businesses.
Beautiful_Finger4566 | 5 hours ago
you should trust CNBC as much as you trust Fox Business
Financial-Desk-669 | 8 hours ago
A good number. But as always I would wait for the revision (or the revision to the revision) before celebrating. And again Healthcare is doing the heavy lifting. An aging population is going to grow that sector no matter what is going on in the broader economy.
Bart457_Gansett | 8 hours ago
Agree. The revisions are really important in a fast moving, especially contracting jobs market, economy.
LassenDiscard | 6 hours ago
> A good number.
130,000 isn't actually a good number, it's just not disastrous.
Scrandon | 4 hours ago
A good number*
*for a trđ¤Ąmp
PurpleReign123 | 8 hours ago
Can trust these numbers?
Batetrick_Patman | 7 hours ago
The data from ADP shows only 22k private sector jobs added.
Girl_On_The_Couch | 5 hours ago
Iâm inclined to trust this since 139k-108k (January reported layoffs)= 31,000 jobs and thatâs probably being generous due to underreported unemployment.
HeavySigh14 | 4 hours ago
Even though a company announces layoffs, that does not mean the layoffs are happening immediately and all at once. It usually goes in cycles
patronsaintofdice | 8 hours ago
Even if theyâre âaccurateâ I donât remember many (any?) upward revisions last year, though I remember lots of downward ones.
jrex035 | 5 hours ago
Not a single month saw a positive final revision. And the revision that dropped today eliminated 2/3rds of the overall gains.
We'll get the final numbers for December next month, and then in the Summer they'll do a final revision for I believe March 2025 through February 2026 which is appears likely to wipe out the remaining 181k
dicknotrichard | 6 hours ago
Nope
misterguyyy | 7 hours ago
ADP releases their own numbers so itâd be almost impossible to fudge on a large scale without glaring red flags. And if those flags were raised the market would suffer more than a lackluster jobs report.
Angry-Dragon-1331 | 6 hours ago
Iâm sorry, but have you met the current administration? Theyâll certainly try to lie about anything they can get away with.
misterguyyy | 6 hours ago
Iâm not disagreeing with you, Iâm just saying that they canât get away with it.
Iâm sure Trump will claim that unemployment went down 5000% at some point if he hasnât already, but the department itself has a rough idea of what it can get away with and what it canât.
fake_insider | 6 hours ago
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/fed-chair-jerome-powell-says-us-may-be-drastically-overstating-jobs-numbers/ar-AA1S7cFs
BaluZana | 8 hours ago
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. We will not have a recession and/or an increase in unemployment while the federal government is running a nearly $2 trillion deficit, year after year. And this is not a political point, most of the spending has very little to do with who is in the White House or Congress.
Basically, our policy for the past 20 years has been for the federal government to backstop everything, individuals, jobs, companies, etc. It's the bailout economy. That means that the U.S. economy now is no longer reliant on the business cycle, but on the ability of the Treasury to issue debt at relatively reasonable yields.
That's our leaders' greatest fear. If yields blow out, and investors worldwide are no longer willing to lend money to the U.S. at 4%, we're in big big trouble.
nicetriangle | 5 hours ago
Given that information, this seems like an inopportune time to weaken international relationships and faith in the USD...
kintotal | 7 hours ago
It's fine for the Federal government to spend money, but it should be done to increase productivity through science, innovation, new energy, etc. Instead all Republicans are doing is lining the pockets of Trump and his cronies. Bidenomics intended to grow America, Trumptrashenomics is bankrupting it.
BaluZana | 7 hours ago
Thatâs bullshit and you know it. I intentionally wanted to avoid politics because thatâs right not our fundamental problem, but you canât help yourself
Josh-Of-All-Trades | 7 hours ago
Talking about the US economy and you want to avoid politics? This is possibly the most confusing statement on this thread.
BaluZana | 6 hours ago
No, pretending that one party represents all thatâs good and the other represents all thatâs bad is why weâre where we are.
Has either party made any meaningful attempt to reduce spending and get our fiscal house in order? Has either party really done anything about the fact that our corporations have sold out our people to increase profits by offshoring?
Josh-Of-All-Trades | 6 hours ago
When you're comparing policy, thats politics, no? Economics impacts more than those in one's immediate social circle, no? The parties ABSOLUTELY have diametrically opposed ideas of how to enact economic policy, and acting like many of our political issues don't revolve around a certain parties obstruction tactics is disingenuous.
Politics is inherently a part of economics and discussions thereof. You can say what you want, but perhaps you could have made an argument with support to back up your initial claims. Economics is the dismal science for a reason. This isn't physical science we're talking about. This isn't mathematics. If you dont like it, I dont know what to tell you.
Economic debate has been politics since the term politics was created.
Josh-Of-All-Trades | 6 hours ago
Just for fun, so I'm not wasting hours of my time, I ran this through perplexity.
"Policies that clearly lifted âregularâ AmericansMost of these are associated with the U.S. left or with crossâparty coalitions moving in a more socialâdemocratic direction.New Deal/Great Society safety net: Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare/Medicaid, and related programs dramatically cut oldâage poverty and provided basic security that supported consumer demand.���Proâlabor institutions: High union density, strong labor standards, and wartime/earlyâpostwar wage policies raised wage floors and compressed wage gaps, especially between the middle and the top.��Financial regulation: New Dealâera rules limiting speculative finance reduced crises for decades; later research links financial regulation to both greater stability and less extreme topâend income shares.��Mass education and public investment: Heavy public spending on schooling, college access (GI Bill), and infrastructure supported productivity growth and upward mobility, particularly from the 1940s through the 1960s.��Progressive taxation episodes: When top rates and capital taxes were higher (e.g., midâcentury, and again with Clintonâs 1993 tax increase), revenue rose without killing growth, and the 1990s saw very strong expansion and even budget surpluses.��An example: after Clinton raised top income-tax rates in 1993âa move heavily opposed by conservativesâthe following years produced what was then the longest peacetime expansion, strong job creation, and multiple federal budget surpluses.ďż˝Policies that hurt the middle class the mostThese are mainly elements of the postâ1980 conservative/neoliberal agenda, though some had bipartisan backing.Regressive tax shifts and âtrickleâdownâ: Large cuts to top income and capitalâgains taxes since the early 1980s increased afterâtax incomes at the top, widened inequality, andâover decadesâhave not produced the promised broad wage surge; instead, inequality has surpassed Gilded Age levels.���Weakening unions and labor standards: Policy and business choices that reduced union power, eroded bargaining rights, and allowed the real minimum wage to fall explain a large share of the rise in wage inequality and the gap between low/midâwage workers and the top.ďż˝Financial deregulation: 1980sâ2000s deregulation amplified the top 1% share of income and contributed to financial crises, which impose large costs on ordinary workers through unemployment and lost wealth.��Persistent high unemployment bias: Macroeconomic policy that prioritizes very low inflation over full employment has kept unemployment above its estimated ânaturalâ rate for long stretches, which directly suppresses wage growth for middleâ and lowâwage workers.���Trade/globalization design: Trade and capitalâflow policies exposed manufacturing and midâskill workers to import competition without equivalent labor protections, adjustment aid, or bargaining power, pushing many into lowerâwage jobs.���Policyâenabled employer power: Lax antitrust and weak labor protections allowed high laborâmarket concentration, so many local employers face little competition for workers, limiting the ability of workers to switch jobs for better pay.ďż˝"
Notice anything?
"So, historically, the most successful policies for lifting broad American living standards have been the New Deal/postwar social insurance, proâlabor, and progressiveâtax regimes traditionally associated with the left, while the most damaging for ordinary workers have been the longârun package of highâend tax cuts, deregulation, and weakened worker bargaining power associated with the conservative economic turn since the late 1970s.�����"
wackOverflow | 3 hours ago
This reads like a victory lap for one ideology while ignoring the bill that came due. Yes, Social Security, Medicare, the GI Bill, and similar programs helped a lot of people. No serious person disputes that. The problem is you are treating the outcomes as proof of good policy while acting like the financing does not matter.
Both parties built an entitlement state they refused to pay for. Expansions of Social Security, Medicare Part D, the ACA, and COVID relief were all bipartisan. Now interest on the debt is larger than defense spending and growing faster than anything else. A program that lifts incomes while being funded with borrowed money is not prosperity, it is a national credit card.
The Clinton surplus example is selective history. Those years had a tech boom, post-Cold War defense cuts, and a Republican Congress that restrained spending growth. The moment spending accelerated again, the surpluses disappeared. That does not prove raising top rates automatically creates growth, it proves context matters.
You also blame the 2008 crisis and inequality entirely on deregulation while skipping the government side. Fed cheap money, Fannie and Freddie guarantees, and housing mandates all distorted risk. Dodd-Frank then concentrated power in the biggest banks instead of helping regular borrowers. That is not exactly a free market morality play.
Union decline and wage stagnation are driven far more by automation, demographics, and exploding housing, healthcare, and education costs than by a simple story about neoliberalism. Those high costs come from heavily regulated sectors. Globalization lowered prices for the bottom half of the income scale, and most manufacturing job losses came from technology, not trade.
The real squeeze on the middle class today is not that taxes on the wealthy are too low. It is cost disease created by policy. Zoning blocks housing, healthcare is controlled by cartels, subsidized loans inflate tuition, and energy permitting drives up utility bills. Those systems are bipartisan and protected by interest groups.
The postwar boom was a demographic and geopolitical anomaly, not proof one party discovered the perfect formula. Both sides spent decades making promises without paying for them and used easy money to hide the gap. Arithmetic always wins.
Reducing poverty with borrowed dollars is not success, it just moves the due date.
Josh-Of-All-Trades | 7 minutes ago
This is alot of words to essentially talk about 2 different things that can both be entirely true, albeit different topics entirely.
Scrandon | 4 hours ago
That needs to be done when the economy is in a strong place. Trump and Bush are the only ones on the last 30 years to have that opportunity, and they completely abdicated responsibility.
BaluZana | 4 hours ago
I'm not going to debate with liberals. You people are too delusional to see the world as it actually is.
smokingotter | 2 hours ago
How long do you reckon we got at this pace before shit hits the fan?
BaluZana | 2 hours ago
To be honest I thought in 2009 we were cooked after the ARRA and never thought we could quadruple the debt in the next 16 years with seemingly no catastrophic failures
AustinBike | 6 hours ago
So, in simple terms, last year, for the whole year, we added 181,000 jobs. OK, seems low, but totally believable. Essentially ~2/3 lower than actually reported. That part is not good.
But, based on the economic situation over the last year, as I said, believable.
The part that is unbelievable is the January job numbers showing 130,000.
One month.
~72% of ALL the job growth of 2025.
Smells fishy. I just can't believe any data coming out of the administration at this point. And all of this reinforces my belief that we are in a period of economic chaos, and in such times, modest, conservative economic choices are the smart move. Bitcoin, AI, and even gold, at this point, are probably bad places to be putting your focus. Keep your powder dry. Even though cash is not returning much, your focus should not be on increasing profits as much as it should be on minimizing losses. We are not out of this, by a long shot.
cjwidd | 8 hours ago
The underlying signal from ADP, JOLTS, Challenger, and the hiring rate all still point to a labor market that's barely treading water and the +130K is probably (mostly) a statistical artifact.
Seasonal adjustments over-corrected because fewer holiday workers were hired (fewer January layoffs than the model expected), warm weather helped, and BLS switched to a new birth-death model with this release. Every other data source (i.e. ADP at +22K, record-low hiring plans from Challenger, weak JOLTS, and the fact that every single month of 2025 was revised downward) says the real labor market is weak.
Healthcare alone has been carrying the entire economy, and without it, private sector job growth has been essentially zero.
I expect this number to get revised down.
No-Compote-696 | 8 hours ago
AI Data centers are propping the bubble up as well and hiding the reality. 5 companies spent a combined 400+ billion on AI data centers last year, with 700 billion planned this year... insane amount of money on something so useless
kintotal | 7 hours ago
Hardley useless. AI and robotics is transforming the manufacturing and services industry whether you like it or not.
Kurovi_dev | 5 hours ago
I think they were being sarcastic, meaning the money is not being spent on something useless, but something very specifically designed to remove people from payrolls.
phillyfanjd1 | 6 hours ago
Can't search for myself at the moment. Can you elaborate on the new "birth-death model"? Is that births and deaths of the US population, or birth= new jobs, death = lost jobs?
baronvondoofie | 6 hours ago
The problem is we canât trust the numbers anymore from an Administration that does everything to appease an ego that is so easily hurt by any semblance of bad news. The well is tainted.
thegooddoktorjones | 6 hours ago
Yay! More pumped up numbers to inevitably be revised way down! But the headlines will say âbetter than expectedâ anyway.
If anyone is in an actual decision making position and took this as good news they are a fool.
LadybuggingLB | 8 hours ago
Stock market booming, jobs numbers great, profits soaring.
Yet everyone I know is struggling.
I make very very low 6 figures but mortgage and college and heating and grocery and health insurance/deductibles (no major health issues either) seem to keep me struggling. I am lucky enough to have enough to put into savings and retirement but Iâm sure as hell not living large. My car is 20 years old so not even a car payment.
And everyone says the job market is soft, too.
Macro numbers arenât matching my micro experience.
ballmermurland | 8 hours ago
Anecdotally - I have a fair number of former coworkers and friends who are unemployed right now after having been employed for 20+ years. They have been job hunting for months with nothing to show for it.
I have never had more than 1 or 2 unemployed friends looking for work in my lifetime. Now I have almost 10.
Lestranger-1982 | 8 hours ago
Half my mid career friends all over six figures canât find shit. Itâs a fucking nightmare.
maxamillion17 | 7 hours ago
What industry
maxamillion17 | 7 hours ago
What industry?
Brokenandburnt | 7 hours ago
You are not wrong.
Once you dig into how the BLS has been hamstrung and the individual inflation categories and wage growth the picture becomes a little clearer.
kintotal | 7 hours ago
This isn't even close to correct. ADP reported private employers added 22,000 jobs in January. This is a pure lie by the Trump administration.
BitterFuture | 6 hours ago
I guess if you're going to lie, might as well go for a really big one?
Beautiful_Finger4566 | 5 hours ago
sure, but I hope you said the same thing when Biden lied about his numbers too
TheGoodCod | 9 hours ago
Really it's a good report for 2026.
But a dive in shows that 2025 was worse than we thought.
Curious about what will happen with rate cuts. CPI Friday's gonna be important.
Brighter_Days_Ahead4 | 8 hours ago
Eh, just wait until the next report where these numbers will inevitably be adjusted downwards.
Sea_Hold_2881 | 8 hours ago
The system is set up to trigger downward revisions because the businesses reporting quickly are those doing well. Businesses closing down don't report at all and don't show up in the data.
ZayuhTheIV | 8 hours ago
I do think itâs curious that the expected range was between 30-100k. I heard that number this morning and called it 65k, right down the middle. Yet somehow the actual number is exactly double that? Smells fishy.
mtech101 | 7 hours ago
2025 was Bidens numbers! /s
95Daphne | 8 hours ago
My guess: likely not interesting (with CPI).
I wasn't fully watching with 2018, but I can just SMELL the 2018-ish vibes here. The big differences here are that oil is lower, rents are falling, and companies are eating more of the tariff cost.
There is a good shot we actually wind up under the magical 2% CPI number.
buzzedewok | 6 hours ago
They said to âlower expectationsâ yesterday. Is that why they are saying âhigher than expectedâ today? This is absolutely laughable and still a terrible number.
DippyHippy420 | an hour ago
Fake numbers put out by the Trump administration.
Remember Trump fired a senior official over "bad" job numbers
p_pio | 8 hours ago
Good report.
Look inside: payrolls for 2025 downwardly revised by over 400k, total employment by over 1M.
Data analytics really do live by headlines rather than actual data?
UND_mtnman | 5 hours ago
Analytics is just vibes these days, whichever vibes they feel like having or are being told to have.
Barnyard_Rich | 8 hours ago
Fascinating report. The unemployment rate of every major group was flat, except teenage unemployment plummeted 13.6%.
Then there's this:
>In January, the number of people not in the labor force who currently want a job decreased by 399,000 to 5.8 million. These individuals were not counted as unemployed because they were not actively looking for work during the 4 weeks preceding the survey or were unavailable to take a job. (See table A-1.)
And, of course, the gains come mostly from Health Care and Individual/Family Services:
>Health care added 82,000 jobs in January, with gains in ambulatory health care services (+50,000), hospitals (+18,000), and nursing and residential care facilities (+13,000). Job growth in health care averaged 33,000 per month in 2025.
>Employment in social assistance increased by 42,000 in January, primarily in individual and family services (+38,000).
>Construction added 33,000 jobs in January, reflecting an employment gain in nonresidential specialty trade contractors (+25,000). Employment in construction was essentially flat in 2025.
Though the construction is good, which has been rare in the this Trump administration.
TheFeshy | 8 hours ago
>nonresidential specialty trade contractors
I wonder how much of this is from data center rollouts and related AI growth/bubble?
No-Compote-696 | 8 hours ago
Construction will continue to do well through this year, its all AI money
Street_Barracuda1657 | 8 hours ago
And how many of those jobs were replacing workers that got kidnapped off of their job SitesâŚ
RealisticForYou | 6 hours ago
South Texas is reporting they cannot complete their new housing projects due to ICE raids. Canât wait for Texas to turn blue!
justherefor23andme | 5 hours ago
Keep waiting...
Just kidding. Hopefully this will be the year. The border cities and the big cities have not voted in a cohesive manner, but once they do, it's over for Republicans.
MisinformedGenius | 6 hours ago
> The unemployment rate of every major group was flat, except teenage unemployment plummeted 13.6%.
I mean... it went up on an NSA basis. January's job report is always a bit wonky due to the massive changes in NSA.
iceguy349 | 7 hours ago
I was getting enthusiastic there until you see the end of 2025 and start of 2026 crash from the Trump Tariff scare. Itâs recovering because Trumpâs been distracted with other bullshit.
Thinklikeachef | 6 hours ago
Powell already specified the issue with job numbers. It's the birth death model. He would have seen data to confirm this before making a public statement. That's likely the cause of the 2025 revisions. And likely why the Jan would be revised downward.
The birth-death model estimates net job gains or losses from new business openings ("births") minus closures ("deaths") that aren't yet captured in the BLS's monthly payroll survey of established firms.[1][3][4]
Core problem
It relies on historical averages for jobs per new firm, but post-COVID shiftsâlike fewer startups, lower jobs-per-new-business (e.g., gig workers registering as solo "firms"), and more closures during slowdownsâled to systematic overestimation of ~60,000 jobs monthly in late 2025, per Powell.[2][3][4][5] This fueled large downward benchmark revisions, like the -403,000 to 2025 payrolls.[10]
Application to January 2026
Today's report uses BLS's newly updated model, which incorporates fresher monthly data for better accuracy and less lag.[11][9][4] Analysts estimate it shaves 30k-50k off the +130k headline, implying true gains closer to 80k-100k, continuing the overcount pattern Powell flagged but with reduced bias going forward.[9][12][10]
Citations: [1] The âbirth-deathâ model: What can it tell us about the economy? https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/10/09/the-birth-death-model-what-can-it-tell-us-about-the-economy [2] Fed Chair Jerome Powell Says U.S. May Be Drastically Overstating ... https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/1pjmq7a/fed_chair_jerome_powell_says_us_may_be/ [3] Case for more Fed rate cuts could rest on 'systematic overcount' of jobs https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/11/case-for-more-fed-rate-cuts-could-rest-on-systemic-overcount-of-jobs.html [4] Fed's Labor Market Assumption Surprise - The American Action Forum https://www.americanactionforum.org/daily-dish/feds-labor-market-assumption-surprise/ [5] US job growth through March was significantly weaker than ... - CNN https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/09/business/us-bls-jobs-preliminary-benchmark-revisions [6] [PDF] Transcript of Chair Powell's Press Conference -- September 17, 2025 https://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20250917.pdf [7] Is the economy losing jobs? The Fed's rate cut hints at bigger worries. https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20251212238/is-the-economy-losing-jobs-the-feds-rate-cut-hints-at-bigger-worries [8] Live Updates: Jobs Report May Offer Clarity on Uncertain Labor ... https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/02/11/business/jobs-report-economy/after-a-year-of-sluggish-hiring-2026-could-be-off-to-a-stronger-start [9] US job growth likely picked up in January; unemployment rate ... https://www.reuters.com/business/us-job-growth-likely-picked-up-january-unemployment-rate-forecast-steady-44-2026-02-11/ [10] Job Growth Was Overstated, New Data Shows - The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/11/business/economy/january-jobs-report-revisions.html [11] Employment Situation Summary - 2026 M01 Results https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm [12] US job growth accelerates in January, unemployment rate falls to 4.3% https://www.reuters.com/business/us-job-growth-accelerates-january-unemployment-rate-falls-43-2026-02-11/
peepee2tiny | 5 hours ago
Ya'll forget that Trump fired the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner, Erika McEntarfer, in September 2025?
Trump fired her, because he didn't like the job numbers that she was presenting.
He replaced her with EJ Antoni who is an economist at the Heritage Foundation.
Suddenly the US has good, strong job numbers that seemingly don't make sense?
ummmmmmm...."staring around at the elephant in the room"
Blackant71 | 4 hours ago
The bar is set so low for these folks. All they have to do is put out a number as many of you have mentioned then just revise it as no one will be paying attention. When you put a lie out there it's believed whether or not you come out and say it was wrong. The damage is already done.
Embarrassed_Word_542 | an hour ago
Câmon man. Apparently most of that accounts for gov jobs. Private sector jobs are less than a quarter of that. Admin cookin tf outta those numbers and people turn a blind eye. Weâre so hosed.
bjdevar25 | 5 hours ago
If you believe the numbers. It's doubtful in this administration. Especially since the ones reporting know they'll be fired if orange man doesn't like what they report.
hpygilmr | 5 hours ago
Lmao, but the last Administration reported millions of new jobs were added and it was a lie, the last a administration reported crime was going down and it was a lie, the last administration reported the border was closed and it was a lie and youâre commenting on what this Administration reports? Sounds like you have TDS to me.
bjdevar25 | 5 hours ago
đ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Ł. Not me, look in the mirror and get some real data. While we're talking, unredact and release all the Epstein filed.
TheLichWitchBitch | 5 hours ago
You got any sources or just vibes and bullshit? I'll wait.
FanofSKC | 5 hours ago
Not a current administration supporter, but last administration definitely put out false numbers. Perhaps not intentionally, but this is easily findable and reported.
https://www.npr.org/2024/08/21/nx-s1-5084178/us-fewer-jobs-biden-initially-reported
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/2024/11/01/job-report-is-indictment-of-biden-harris-incompetence/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/08/bls-has-lengthy-history-of-inaccuracies-incompetence/
ConkerPrime | 6 hours ago
Are the numbers accurate? Itâs already been established that Trump will fire any jobs report that isnât favorable. This feels like an exaggeration based on the many announcements of layoffs and other information
Separate-Spot-8910 | 4 hours ago
Navarro said yesterday that we should expect jobs numbers in the 50k range instead of the 6 digit range. I guess if you drastically lower your expectations, these numbers look really great. Thats how the Trump administration does things. Really, really lower, and I mean throw out all expectations of anything positive.
americanspirit64 | an hour ago
"On wages, average hourly earnings increased 0.4% for the month, 0.1 percentage point higher than expected, and 3.7% annually, in line with the forecast."
This is the most important line in the entire article is the last line of the entire report. That the average hourly earnings of Americans only increased by 0.4% for the month,.
"According to Google AI.
0.4% of a cent is equal to 0.004 cents, which converts to dollars, according to standard decimal to percentage calculations (). This tiny amount is equivalent to of a single cent or roughly 4/100,000 of a full dollar. For context, this is a fraction of a penny (0.004 cents). 0.4c=0.4á100=$0.004 )."
3.7 of a cent (0.037 cents) is equal to**$0.0003** (or 0.037 cents), as 1 cent is $0.01 and 3.7% of that is a tiny fraction of a US dollar, far less than a single penny ($0.01), specifically 37 ten-thousandths of a cent. It is less than four-hundredths of a penny.
âSo the entire article comes down to this, not a lot of money and not a lot of jobs. This is pure propaganda by the government, written by a team of researchers whose sole job is to sit around and write reports on how to make shitty results, look good to please Trump. The fact that there are no independent organizations reporting on the facts that we can trust, which is far more disturbing thing then the results themselves. It all comes down to âWho is watching the Watchersâ. If only a 130,000 thousands jobs were added to the job market in January that is only 0.0371429% of the population of America, again not a lot. Roughly 0 per person for everyone living in American math again according to AI. Maybe it's not, but it doesnât sound like a great number of jobs to me, considering they didn't list job losses.
DimMak1 | 8 hours ago
Factually we know these numbers have been manipulated higher. There is no job growth and inflation is >10%. We are reaching âBaghdad Bobâ level of gaslighting from the regime on the economy which is rotten to the core and only works for right wing billionaires.
PlanetCosmoX | 9 hours ago
Some Trump lacky to another lacky.
âDo we doctor the numbers or do we allow the bad info to be published so the Fed will be able to lower rates based on real data?â
âDunno, letâs ask Trump.. Navarro / Bessent whatâs more important. Lower rates, or the perception of a healthy economy?â
defaultedebt | 9 hours ago
The interim head of the BLS has worked there for 40 years and was first appointed to Deputy Commissioner by Obama.
tasticle | 8 hours ago
You mean the guy that Trump appointed to replace the guy that was fired because he wouldn't cook the books for Trump? The guy that literally only has his job because he will play ball? I'm sure he's legit.
carlos_the_dwarf_ | 8 hours ago
Lol, no, Trumpâs appointment was cock blocked and the agency is currently run by an Obama appointee.
Do you guys even bother to consider whatâs true and whatâs not before opening your mouths?
defaultedebt | 8 hours ago
Your comment indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of how statistical agencies function. I will offer some reading to aid your understanding:
https://www.science.org/content/article/why-top-economist-discounts-trump-s-claim-u-s-jobs-data-are-rigged
>Q: Do you think Trumpâs firing of the commissioner and his harsh criticism of BLS will impact upcoming employment reports?
>A: The acting commissioner, Bill Wiatrowski, is a career civil servant, incredibly dedicated and a skilled leader. So, I donât think [Trumpâs actions] will affect the way the two surveys are conducted and how the data are processed unless there is an outside attempt to interfere with its operations.
https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/top-of-mind/data-un-reliability
>Allison Nathan: What would you say to those who worry about political influences on the data?
>Erica Groshen (Ex-BLS Commissioner): As weâve discussed, BLS data production is a highly automated, factory-like process. Raw data from employers run through estimation routines that produce the final tables without personal judgement or interference. All BLS staff are career civil servants, with the sole exception of the commissioner who is appointed by the president for a four-year fixed term. But the commissioner has minimal involvement with the data production process. When I was Commissioner, I didnât see the numbers due to be reported on Friday until the prior Tuesday night or Wednesday morning. And I only saw the final tables. So, the commissioner has no way of altering the figures or even accessing the underlying data or models necessary to do so. Such intervention would require fundamentally changing BLS procedures and systems, which are purposefully built to safeguard against such manipulation.
https://www.npr.org/2025/09/05/nx-s1-5530733/bls-jobs-report-labor-statistics-trump
>"Our job is to deliver economic data guided by law and statistical practice ânot partisan whim," they wrote in a statement read aloud at a rally outside the Labor Department's Washington, D.C. headquarters on Friday morning by Helen Lurie.
Hope this helps!
teshh | 7 hours ago
While you may be correct in believing the numbers won't be cooked, we are also led by the most corrupt and inept administration the us has ever seen.
Am I really going to take someone's word who works for this administration and trust it? Absolutely fucking not. They have politicized nearly everything, to the point people don't believe health officials either anymore.
PlanetCosmoX | 7 hours ago
The system is undermined, nobody believes the results especially now that revisions basically nullify an entire years worth of reports.
joeblow2118 | 9 hours ago
Not fitting your narrative, huh?
frankie_donkiebrains | 8 hours ago
The fed has already come out saying they are expecting massive revisions downwards on all these numbers.....again.
The numbers cannot be trusted at this point and the professionals are coming right out and saying it.
Ashamed-Reaction-548 | 8 hours ago
Nobody should be bragging about 130,000 jobs be created. It is actually kind of pathetic when you consider how much god damn money this administration is printing.
HoopsMcCann69 | 8 hours ago
The narrative is we have a fascist regime terrorizing American communities and doing immense damage to our country's standing in the world, regardless of what the jobs numbers are for a month
Acheron13 | 8 hours ago
I dare you to include more buzzwords.
HoopsMcCann69 | 7 hours ago
Just because I use "buzzwords" doesn't make it not true
PlanetCosmoX | 8 hours ago
Youâre right that itâs a narrative.
love-SRV | 8 hours ago
They fired the people who create these numbers as soon as Trump entered office. He replaced them with his own people loyal to him and him only. I would not trust a single number produced my the Trump administration.
defaultedebt | 8 hours ago
> He replaced them with his own people loyal to him and him only.
You mean Bill Wiatrowski? The current interim head, appointed by Obama in 2015 as Deputy Comissioner?
https://www.bls.gov/bls/senior_staff/wiatrowski.htm
Brokenandburnt | 7 hours ago
I know that you often try to correct people's misconceptions on how statistical work is done, and that the current Chief of the BLS is an old trusted Vet.
We also know that they got their budget slashed by 20% early '25, so they were forced to increase the number of imputations from 10% to 30%. They had to reduce collection in two cities and halted entirely in Buffalo. The answers to it's surveys has declined from ~74% to ~58%. They have also recently tweaked the Birth death model to keep it up to date.
Combined with the insanity of first the pandemic, and now the chaotic 2025 it's not surprising that the quality of the data has degraded. That sentiment isn't coming only from us "Reddit intellectuals" but has also started to increasingly filter out from the professionals.
I commend you on trying to increase the knowledge of how statistics work and it's limitations, but the fact remains that things really are that grim for the lower earners in the population.
Hacking_the_Gibson | 8 hours ago
Tom Homan was also an Obama appointee. So was Michael Flynn.
Some people are absolute shitheads but are willing to put aside their shittiness in exchange for greater power. Once in the position of greater power, they unleash their latent shittiness upon the world around them.
defaultedebt | 7 hours ago
You can nitpick all you want, but it just shows you don't understand how the BLS and other statistical agencies work.
https://www.science.org/content/article/why-top-economist-discounts-trump-s-claim-u-s-jobs-data-are-rigged
>Q: Do you think Trumpâs firing of the commissioner and his harsh criticism of BLS will impact upcoming employment reports?
>A: The acting commissioner, Bill Wiatrowski, is a career civil servant, incredibly dedicated and a skilled leader. So, I donât think [Trumpâs actions] will affect the way the two surveys are conducted and how the data are processed unless there is an outside attempt to interfere with its operations.
Like, do you really think every government agency, independent board, federal office, works and functions identically? They don't, and very obviously so. That's why the BLS Commissioner isn't called the Secretary of State, and why the Administrator of the EPA isn't called the Vice President. They're different roles, in different parts of government, with different limits, different functions, and different governance structures.
Hacking_the_Gibson | 7 hours ago
> unless there is an outside attempt to interfere with its operations
These people tore down the entire East Wing of the fucking White House on their own whim, and they got away with it.
You think there aren't thousands of people involved in making sure the East Wing didn't get bulldozed? Making some numbers fit a narrative is a goddamn cakewalk comparatively.
defaultedebt | 7 hours ago
Yeah, I thought you'd take issue with that, and again, nitpick. Here you go:
https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/top-of-mind/data-un-reliability
>Allison Nathan: What would you say to those who worry about political influences on the data?
>Erica Groshen (Ex-BLS Commissioner): As weâve discussed, BLS data production is a highly automated, factory-like process. Raw data from employers run through estimation routines that produce the final tables without personal judgement or interference. All BLS staff are career civil servants, with the sole exception of the commissioner who is appointed by the president for a four-year fixed term. But the commissioner has minimal involvement with the data production process. When I was Commissioner, I didnât see the numbers due to be reported on Friday until the prior Tuesday night or Wednesday morning. And I only saw the final tables. So, the commissioner has no way of altering the figures or even accessing the underlying data or models necessary to do so. Such intervention would require fundamentally changing BLS procedures and systems, which are purposefully built to safeguard against such manipulation.
You, and many others, consistently show a fundamental lack of understanding of how statistical agencies operate. Yet, you so confidently comment on it? For reference, no such changes in methodology or procedures has occurred.
carlos_the_dwarf_ | 8 hours ago
Iâm sure /u/love-srv will come back and acknowledge his mistake.
kc3x | 8 hours ago
Hmm following the 3-6 month time line..... Companies started firing everyone Nov,Dec,Jan just like when Trump Fired the Government workers it took 6 months before Revisions showed up and .....(They were Fired) im betting on we are about to many people classified into the Seasonal section as BBB is now Kicking in. Which will show they are working and not getting Government assistance even though they are.... also Remember Trump had to add/recall/reoffer allot of Government workers during December also so things would function.
Trump also kicked civilians workers off bases for a bit which huhhh has had to be (Reinstated) cause work has stalled as they had no future plans......
There are so many wild incidents happening at once the Payroll zone is being flooded with work and fired/rehired employees.
lordofboofin | 5 hours ago
Would mass deportations and arrests of supposed illegals who canât be employed on paper lead to increased employment?
Was there mass firings for the people who record these stats when trump got into office? I remember they posted numbers he didnât like, then he had a tantrum.
ashark1983 | 3 hours ago
So forgive the layman question, but if the numbers aren't accurate, as in they are always revised, why even report them this early? Who would want to base a decision off bad numbers?
Preme2 | 8 hours ago
I suspect this wonât get much engagement. Positive news about the US is frowned upon. It also doesnât have you know who in the title.
This sub is filled with miserable liberals, upset Europeans, Canadians and Chyna. Theyâre shouting doom, gloom, sadness and misery from the rooftops all to win an election.
If you asked Reddit about their life outside of politics theyâre making 350k and living in a 850k house. If you asked Reddit anything with a hint of political commentary, the economy has never been worse even though prime age workers unemployment rate is below 4%.
If youâre a young person, you should be upset. If youâre a 40 year old mentally ill liberal whining about Trump everyday, seek help.
Brokenandburnt | 7 hours ago
BLS budget cut 20% early '25, this forced the imputations from 10% to 30%, the various survey answers has decreased from ~74% to ~57%, the staff reduction forced a pullback on collection from two cities and halted completely on Buffalo. They have also tweaked the Birth Death model since it was out of date.
Add in post-pandemic job market stress and the chaotic 2025 with firing, rehiring, deportations and government shutdowns it's nothing odd that the quality of data has suffered greatly. Just recently JPow and another member of the Fed came out and stated that the data quality was now unreliable.
Dig into the individual inflation figures and wage growths and suddenly the reason behind so many are struggling and not believing in a growing economy.
Official narratives never tell a complete picture from any administration in any government. Not always on purpose, but simply because the issues are to complex to easily breakdown in a statement.
Florac | 8 hours ago
It shouldn't get much engagement because it's not reliable news. Over and over these numbers were revised down over the last year, with the early numbers being celebrated and the revisions ignored, despite them painting a bleak picture
Street_Barracuda1657 | 8 hours ago
50k EMTs is not positive news.
kennykerberos | 6 hours ago
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 130,000 job growth in January, exceeding the Dow Jones economistsâ prediction of 55,000. The unemployment rate was 4.3%, lower than the Dow Jones prediction of 4.4%.
Experts way off. Again.
Great jobs number. Strong economy!
3D-Dreams | 6 hours ago
Oh shut up with this bow to the donkey routine. He's hasn't given us factual numbers on the economy and jobs since day one...you would have to be a fool to believe this crap. And unfortunately his lies are going to come back to kick us in ass..oh and hope you enjoyed paying and extra $1000 for stuff last year because of tariffs, the same ones killing our little farmers and ranchers...and after he already screwed them with beef and soybeans.
kennykerberos | 6 hours ago
The economy is a lot stronger than the narrative being pushed by Dems and the media. Now we have this jobs number with the wage growth and lower unemployment rate. The GDP came in over 4% is projected to be over 5% next release. Inflation rate low and near Fed target. Gas prices down. Home mortgages and car loans down. Even stocks near all time highs.
I get it. Itâs an election year and the side out of power is going to go all in on nonsense trying to brainwash people on things that just arenât so.
Data and facts say: The economy is strong.
3D-Dreams | 6 hours ago
You're making shit up like him spare me I can read. I get it it's an election year and you are all terrified that you're already getting your asses handed to you in areas Trump won. So your lies make sense. But it doesn't make them facts. And Trump AGAIN hasn't given us legit numbers since the start. I'll bet you money those job numbers will be quietly revised ..in other words they are just propaganda by the party of pedophiles.
And let's just ignore that he's added trillion to the national debt and the fact that the trade deficit has grown. The moron even called his own trade agreement crap because he forgot he did it the first time around .The guys a moronic putz and all your lies won't change the facts.
kennykerberos | 5 hours ago
When did the Dems stop believing facts and data?
3D-Dreams | 5 hours ago
When did Republicans start ..oh that's right..they haven't. By the way how's the whole measles thing going on advise from Capt. Brainworm....he's even got Dr Oz begging people to take it lol. Sad pathetic joke.
artisanrox | 5 hours ago
sure, bro
Godhelptupelo | 6 hours ago
gas is under $2 per gallon in MANY CITIES! and nobody is laughing at or booing the US anymore! lolđ
TheDudeAbidesFarOut | 8 hours ago
This is a new one. Didn't know they'd do a pump fake with the jobs number football......
I'm writing this sentence so I don't get fined. I'm writing this sentence so I don't get fined...