Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
If we stop testing, the numbers will look better.
If we fire the statistician, the numbers will look better.
He did this with his business dealings, too – just fudge the numbers (add square footage that doesn’t exist, underestimate costs and overestimate profits).
This is a well-tread pattern for this moron. What did anyone expect? He doesn’t care about reality, only that the numbers look good for him.
If we remove NOAA, there won't be any more hurricanes.
Air Force One pilots: "sir, remember when you got rid of NOAA?"
No no, that one’s different. Hurricanes are created by making Jesus cry by touching yourself, and you’re not supposed to look into the eye of god.
So we stop looking by getting rid of NOAA, and we stop the hurricanes by stopping everyone sinning.
And I’m kinda scared about how plausible that sounds.
If we shut down Mauna Loa observatory, they can't update the hockey stick graph anymore and global warming will be solved.
Same thing during covid. If we stop testing, our numbers aren't getting worse!
Just stopping by to say this:
For blind users: included is an image of two friends smiling with one’s hand resting on the other’s opposite shoulder.
Addendum: they were GREAT friends and did everything together
they’re a very cute couple aren’t they?
Couple of pedos
It's obvious she was fired because she's not falsifying economic data well enough.
She, I think.
Thanks. Edited. 😁
Take another pass at it?
At what?
It’s obvious she was fired because he’s not falsifying economic data well enough.
I'm just being pedantic.
grammar nazis everywhere salute you in solidarity!
I had already made my edit in response to someone who politely pointed it out. So I didn't see why another pass was necessary.🤷♂️😁
... There's still a "he". That's what I was trying to point out.
Go ahead Trump, believe you can gaslight the entire world. Several examples of when faith in fiat is lost.
lol yet another step towards the world turning away from the USD standard 🫠
Time to invest in the Euro!
Or the real dark horse candidate...the Nigerian naira!
Niger has the world’s fastest growing population currently, maybe an investment opportunity there. But there’s a country named Nigeria and also one named Niger so I’m wondering which one you were referring to lol
I named the currency.
I'll just skip ahead and start collecting bottle caps.
It's all about the Dong.
Elect a con man get a conned
My one question, the weak jobs numbers make a lot of sense... what on earth caused the crazy inflated past numbers? More I look at it the more confused I get, if she's fired for being honest, was she dishonest in those projections, or did she have a lack of good data at the time?
I believe the original numbers were posted before the severity of the federal labor force dismissal was tallied. The jobs reports numbers are given as a net gain/loss, and while we had immediate data on how many people had applied for new jobs, the WH was cagey about how many people had been fired. The net gain was adjusted down from a few hundred thousand to just 13,000.
The other side is that tariffs and trade "negotiations" are all over the place. You can't really integrate that into your model when they're changing on a day to day basis.
I suspect that Trump's screwing with the economy is so bad that it's messing with their models.
These data are released on the first of each month. That's not a lot of time to tabulate, across all employers across the whole country, all the people hired and fired during the month. That's why they call the 2 previous months 'preliminary.' They're usually pretty good at estimating, and adjusting their estimates for the usual sources of error, but when conditions change dramatically, those fudge factors aren't so good.
So, if you've got a President out there making wild, often contradictory claims three times a week, market traders and corporate execs trying to plan based on those announcements, or just put off by the uncertainty, then you should expect 'preliminary' statistics to be worse guesses than usual.
Because it is an easy way to distract everyone from understanding that this is because of AI
You said this in the other thread as well, so I'll just put my reply from there in here as well:
Because they amount to less than 10% of the total number (less than 80k).
You have many more than that in jobs lost due to DOGE, losses in retail due to tariffs, and other markets due to a lack of consumer spending (due to tariffs/inflation primarily).
I thought it was because of the Epstein file.
They could easily prove me wrong by just releasing it.